Posted on 10/17/2009 11:19:40 AM PDT by Anita1
Then explain how you will oppose a properly ratified treaty in light of article 6 of the US Constitution. The Constitution you swore to uphold and defend calls treaties equal as the supreme Law of the land.
See post 47 of this thread; there is NOTHING the Republicans can do to stop it. They cannot filibuster, and it only takes 34 Democrats to ratify the treaty. There are more than 34 guaranteed-safe Democrat Senate seats, so even raising the hue and cry won't help; you cannot vote out those who would ratify the treaty.
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...”
Thomas Jefferson
We Know that HW Bush mentioned the ‘One World Order’ in his speech, that Kerry and GW were in Skull and Bones, and I know that from everything I have seen, Bernanke brought down our economy by starting the downslide of it when he first got in by manipulatig the mortgage rates, and I know that Paulson also from Sachs was in on these deals.
All of these things were no mistakes - they have been in the works for years. We were just asleep on the Watch!
EXACTLY! That is what I am saying and WHY I posted this video!
RESIST!
Skeptical of what???
And who controls the Congress???
And how many law suits have you followed where the courts have give the usurper a free pass???
I’ve colored all my bullseyes the color of UN blue .
My trigger finger is getting itchy !
How many votes are necessary for treaties???
According to post 47 by PugetSoundSoldier on Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:13:19 PM
“... You only need 50% + 1 of the elected Senators present to make a quorum. Meaning you can get 51 of the Democrats together, and you have a quorum. Then 2/3rds of them have to agree - 34.
People don’t realize that it only takes 34 Senators to ratify a treaty, if they are members of the party in power. The ONLY thing that could stop it would be a filibuster where you delay action in the Senate on anything. But with a filibuster-proof majority, the Democrats can ratify this treaty with just 34 votes.
There are at least 34 completely-safe seats that can vote for this...”
It IS possible then - that O and his cronies CAN do it!
The illegal alien and usurper in the W.H. trumps the Constitution by being ineligible to be in the W.H.!!!
I understand what you are saying but you still don’t give up if you value this country.
I was thinking about this. I listened to Lord Monckton twice. The part where one administration can giveaway America's freedom did not make sense. There has to be checks and balances in the event a communist president gets into office. Which I believe we have.
How far can a executive agreement go? Can a president enslave his country to other nations and give a new global power over our Constitution with his signature?
If Obama tries to sign this, it will be his final kiss off to America. Maybe the powers want to see him try it. They want to see how badly he wants our money going to other nations for his revenge. He will not get 2/3rds votes to ratify this treaty.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
Treaties
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.
Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.
The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved. The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.
The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval.
Constitutional Provisions
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances.
Executive Agreements, Treaty Termination, Status as Law Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
The difficulty in obtaining a two-thirds vote was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate. The United States is currently a party to nearly nine hundred treaties and more than five thousand executive agreements.
The growth in executive agreements is also attributable to the sheer volume of business and contacts between the United States and other countries, coupled with the already heavy workload of the Senate. Many international agreements are of relatively minor importance and would needlessly overburden the Senate if they were submitted to it as treaties for advice and consent. Another factor has been the passage of legislation authorizing the executive branch to conclude international agreements in certain fields, such as foreign aid, agriculture, and trade. Treaties have also been approved implicitly authorizing further agreements between the parties. According to a 1984 study by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, "88.3 percent of international agreements reached between 1946 and 1972 were based at least partly on statutory authority; 6.2 percent were treaties, and 5.5 percent were based solely on executive authority."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SbLG-1AuxQ&feature=related
Obstacles to a climate change agreement in Copenhagen
Legislation to force American money to go to their countries is their obstacle. Oh and much more now because we were industrialized and Bush did not act quick enough.
When they pay back what we have given them then maybe we can talk. Probably not however.
Thanks for the full video link. An amazing presentation. No wonder the DEMONCRATS didn’t want him testifying opposite the MANBEARPIG.
“They call themselves green because they’re too yellow to call themselves Red.”
look at this. It’s like obama wants legislation passed after he signs treaty? Socialist Carol Browner says they will use EPA to do it if cap and tax does not pass.
Obama unlikely to sign climate bill ahead UN meet.
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=1144025534&cid=517&;
and who controls Congress?
Kerry was set to do tis right out of the gate 'when' he got 'elected."
The socialists/marxists have been waiting for this chance for years.
O has a deep motivation to sign the treaty quickly -
O did not go to Copenhagen to ‘talk’ the Olympic Committe into having the Olympics in the US -
The Real Reason was that - O made a pack with the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to sign this treaty - IF
he signed away our sovereignty through signing this treaty!
O doesn’t do anything that does not benefit him!
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.