Posted on 01/26/2005 6:44:05 PM PST by Iam1ru1-2
Legal experts won't be able to oppose this, but political scientists might.
I just called Sen Lugar's office, and his aide told me that President Bush SUPPORTS this and the committee supports it 100% what are we missing here?
Maybe they just don't make Republicans like they used to.
Q. Does the Bush Administration support the Law of the Sea Convention?
A. Yes. The Bush Administration strongly supports U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. The Law of the Sea was one of only five treaties that the Administration placed in its “urgent” category on their most recent Treaty Priority List. Representatives from the Department of State, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard testified in support of the Convention at hearings in October before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Administration helped write the resolution of advice and consent accompanying the treaty. Representatives of the State Department, the Office of Secretary of Defense, the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, and the EPA participated in this interagency drafting process.
What's your point? So the president supports it, at least he says he supports it. So what. There was only one man who was right all the time and he got crucified.
Call Senator Inhofe's office. He's been instrumental in blocking this thing in the past.
my point is if we are going to fight this one and win.. it will be a tough fight.. I would like to know the specific language in the treaty that we are opposing to make a good argument... it is 300 pages and I have not found the "offensive" language, unless of course we are opposing just on the fact that it gives the UN some "authority" which is fine, but not a strong enough argument to win.
Check out Gaffney's website. Centerforsecuritypolic.org.
You are correct in that we need to get the problems with this down to soundbite form. This would be a worthy freeper project.
It takes 2/3's passage in the Senate to ratify a treaty, unless they sneak it in on a voice vote in the middle of the night, like they did the Desertification treaty.
thats exactly what will happen.. it will be passed by UC, to avoid a roll call vote, unless we can come up with a good reason to oppose it
These are a start for talking points
A good resource would be to look up what others who have opposed it said, such as Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms.
I could not find that in the language of the treaty.. im sure its there.. i just have not read the 300pages
I just restored it.
Thanks.. sorry for the double ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.