U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

Reuters ^ | 14 Nov 2009 | Reuters

[dpwiener]

A little bit of paranoia is useful; it keeps us all on our toes. But this is ridiculous. No treaty has any force or effect within the United States unless it is first ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The chances of that happening are precisely zero. In fact, in the current political climate, there is probably at least a two-thirds majority which would vote against the treaty.

The last thing the Democrats want right now is to get into a gun-control battle which they have no chance of winning but which will drastically increase the already-high danger to their incumbent Congressmembers and Senators.

[meyer]

It’s getting very close to that time when we need to use the second amendment for its intended purpose.

Hint: it ain’t about huntin’.

[meyer]

Elections matter......

As do candidates, and as long as the repubLICKans continue to present "liberal-lite" idiots like McCain, Snowe, and Graham, they will not be winning a majority.

[philman_36]

No treaty has any force or effect within the United States unless it is first ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
Bull manure! That statement so full of "it" that it's not even funny!
Patrick Henry "Ratified": The Treaty Power, It's Perils and Portents
Similarly, packages of as many as 34 treaties have been ratified by merely by voice vote.
And that was by members present!
Treaty Law: The Constitution's Original Trojan Horse
The problem is in the US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
"Senators present" not two-thirds of the full Senate. It's the Constitution's original Poison Pill.
It's called a midnight vote 'cause it happens in the dead of night!

Robert's Rules of Order Revised - VIII
Art. VIII. Vote.
Two-thirds Vote. A two-thirds vote means two-thirds of the votes cast, ignoring blanks which should never be counted. This must not be confused with a vote of two-thirds of the members present, or two-thirds of the members, terms sometimes used in by-laws. To illustrate the difference: Suppose 14 members vote on a question in a meeting of a society where 20 are present out of a total membership of 70, a two-thirds vote would be 10; a two-thirds vote of the members present would be 14; and a vote of two-thirds of the members would be 47.

The chances of that happening are precisely zero.
Don't be daft! The previous links should dissuade you from that stupid statement.

[philman_36]

Since I knows you’re knowledgeable in the area would you lend a voice of consent on the misstatement I addressed above in reply 24.

[wastedyears]

So who was it that said the government doesn’t want to regulate arms?

[Blue Collar Christian]

No, Hillary Clinton told them what she wants to do, it will take Senatorial ratification of this treaty to make it U.S. law.

Ain’t gonna happen.

[Smokin' Joe]

Don't go hiding under the bed just yet.

Don't worry, when the SHTF, I won't be hiding under the bed...

[Eska]

I know, you and me both. I meant to post to a previous poster.

[El Gato]

Meaningless alarmism. It doesn’t matter what Obama and/or Clinton agree to. If the Senate doesn’t ratify, it’s dead in the water.

You mean that same body who just passed equally Unconstitutional "Health Care"? Only with guns, not a few RINOs would join in. Remember too that treaties only require 2/3 of the Senators who are present. Many RINOs, who nonetheless represent pro-second amendment states, would find reason to not be present when the vote is taken.

[Smokin' Joe]

No real offense taken, just wanted to clarify that.

[EdReform]

It’s a 24/7 job just watching what is happening behind all of their distractions, healthcare etc. That’s why we belong to the NRA, JPFO, SAF, GOA.

Oath Keepers is another good group. You can join as a Citizen Associate member if you're not active or retired LEO or military.

Oath Keepers

Click here to join your State Group

[Wonder Warthog]

"You mean that same body who just passed equally Unconstitutional "Health Care"? Only with guns, not a few RINOs would join in. Remember too that treaties only require 2/3 of the Senators who are present. Many RINOs, who nonetheless represent pro-second amendment states, would find reason to not be present when the vote is taken."

Sorry, but disagree. RKBA is MUCH more a sensitive issue than health care. Of course, it is ultimately up to us to see it doesn't happen, in't it.

[cbkaty]

As do candidates, and as long as the repubLICKans continue to present "liberal-lite" idiots like McCain, Snowe, and Graham, they will not be winning a majority.

Go to the head of the class!

[east1234]

“would find reason to not be present when the vote is taken.”

Only if they are retiring, Senators like their jobs.

[El Gato]

Only if they are retiring, Senators like their jobs.

That's why they find reason to be absent, so no one can say they voted for the thing, even though in effect they cast half a vote for it.

[tet68]

as long as the talks operated by consensus,

I hope ya’ll are paying attention, this administration
continually uses “consensus” as a method to govern. It’s
become part of any liberal meeting/deliberation, it sounds
so reasonable but really lends itself to manipulation
by skilled leftists who are trained to use it.

Keep listening and you will find it popping up in all
kinds of settings, from Global Warming, to Middle East
peace, in all sorts of political/NGO areas.

[teeman8r]

any treaty must adhere to the US Constitution... and not violate it. No matter who ratifies it.

teeman8R

molon labe indeed.