Skip to comments.
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 ^
| 4/16/10
Posted on 04/16/2010 9:40:42 AM PDT by roses of sharon
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: Eastbound
whoops! 17 is correct after all.
To: Travis McGee
Up...
(+)
22
posted on
05/04/2010 2:36:53 PM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
To: roses of sharon
Four boxes:
Soap,
ballot,
jury,
ammo.
Use in that order.
23
posted on
05/04/2010 2:42:08 PM PDT
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunham?) Change America Will Die From.)
To: Eastbound
"By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Well except that Treaties have to ratified. And not by a simple majority, but by a 2/3 Majority. That's 67 Senators. Zero/Hillary can't find enough to pass it in the Senate.
24
posted on
05/04/2010 2:48:48 PM PDT
by
Jack Black
( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
To: roses of sharon
No treaty can over ride the Constitution regardless of what ol crusty says. Tyrants never learn.
25
posted on
05/04/2010 3:52:01 PM PDT
by
culpeper
(He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people,)
To: roses of sharon
This is right down obama’s alley.
26
posted on
05/04/2010 3:53:49 PM PDT
by
sport
To: Eastbound
The article was written on
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
Treaties have to ratified by a 2/3 Majority of the Senate.
27
posted on
05/04/2010 4:25:07 PM PDT
by
B4Ranch
(Should people be questioning their government? Yes and "Where's the birth certificate?")
To: roses of sharon
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.I hope that's a typical urinalistic liberty taken because the author is incapable of composing the phrase "...on the grounds that allowing the UN to override the Constitution is a violation of national sovereignty and of the rights inherent in American citizens."
If that's the problem, I understand. I'll bet a lot of lib urinalists would have trouble composing or comprehending that phrase.
28
posted on
05/04/2010 4:42:21 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: B4Ranch
That's true. However, treaties cannot over-ride the constitution. The laws based on legally-passed treaties must be in pursuance to the constitution. That is, must be in agreement. Any law passed by congress, including any executive agreement, etc., passed by the president, must be in pursuance to the constitution.
I didn't realize the article was that old or I wouldn't have posted it.
To: roses of sharon
This is the bill that has the ‘small arms’ control in it. You know...any thing that a U.S. citizen owns is considered to be ‘small arms’.
30
posted on
05/04/2010 4:54:49 PM PDT
by
Outlaw Woman
(Control the American people? Herding cats would be easier.)
To: roses of sharon
Any Questions?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson