Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
reuters ^ | 5/21/10 | Reuters

Posted on 05/21/2010 12:37:45 PM PDT by Nachum

(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

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.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; bloodoftyrants; clinton; democrats; donttreadonme; guncontrol; hillary; liberalfascism; obama; reverses; shallnotbeinfringed; stance; treason; treaty; tyranny; un; us

1 posted on 05/21/2010 12:37:46 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list


2 posted on 05/21/2010 12:38:08 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Does this include the Small Arms Treaty that Clinton & 0bama support, too?


3 posted on 05/21/2010 12:41:02 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spirito Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Are China, Russia, and NK doing this too?
4 posted on 05/21/2010 12:43:30 PM PDT by JSteff ((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Amendment II (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

5 posted on 05/21/2010 12:43:40 PM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
FMCDH !!
6 posted on 05/21/2010 12:44:22 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots
Does this include the Small Arms Treaty that Clinton & 0bama support, too

No idea. These cretins make it up as they go.

7 posted on 05/21/2010 12:46:09 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Unconstitutional.


8 posted on 05/21/2010 12:47:24 PM PDT by mirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

9 posted on 05/21/2010 12:52:06 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

*


10 posted on 05/21/2010 12:54:10 PM PDT by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Did You miss amendment 0, rest of constitution
can be ignored or changed by fiat? /S
11 posted on 05/21/2010 12:54:21 PM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunham?) Change America Will Die From.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mirkwood

Unconstitutional? Think Again..........

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


12 posted on 05/21/2010 12:54:27 PM PDT by Red Badger (When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you'll know that its desolation is NEAR. Luke 21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

Excerpt from Article VI:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


13 posted on 05/21/2010 12:56:52 PM PDT by Red Badger (When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you'll know that its desolation is NEAR. Luke 21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
banglist
14 posted on 05/21/2010 1:01:41 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( - Free Men will always be armed with the Truth. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

That doesn't exempt treaties from the United States Constitution. This line "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." applies to state constitutions and laws of states, not the Constitution of the United States.

15 posted on 05/21/2010 1:02:23 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Liberal Logic: Mandatory health insurance is constitutional - enforcing immigration law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I bet it ends up being a General Agreement, rather than a Treaty. That way, if an agreement is reached, it doesn’t need a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Simple majorities in both houses instead.


16 posted on 05/21/2010 1:10:28 PM PDT by savedbygrace (Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

This line:

“...all treaties made...shall be the supreme law of the land;”

Is the backdoor, through which our “inalienable” rights will be taken away................


17 posted on 05/21/2010 1:11:07 PM PDT by Red Badger (When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you'll know that its desolation is NEAR. Luke 21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land

This boils down to laws made under the Constitution shall be subject to the Constitution, as well as any treaties made (under the authority of the United States... i.e. Constitution).

This does not allow for treaties to bypass the Constitution.

18 posted on 05/21/2010 1:13:43 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Liberal Logic: Mandatory health insurance is constitutional - enforcing immigration law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
[snip]...”U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.” [/snip]

The most memorable quote I ever heard from the Rush Limbaugh program was “Consensus is the absence of leadership.”

19 posted on 05/21/2010 1:16:06 PM PDT by Dayman (My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Treaties are treated the same as laws passed by Congress - if they’re unconstitutional, they’re unenforceable and struck down.


20 posted on 05/21/2010 1:17:14 PM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

BLOAT.


21 posted on 05/21/2010 1:21:02 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: green iguana
Treaties are treated the same as laws passed by Congress - if they’re unconstitutional, they’re unenforceable and struck down.

Name a treaty that has been "struck down."

22 posted on 05/21/2010 1:30:07 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

That’s not how the Left views it. They see it as a way of bypassing the Constitution in lieu of International Laws. That is why SCOTUS looking at international laws in making their decisions is so alarming.............


23 posted on 05/21/2010 1:37:08 PM PDT by Red Badger (When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you'll know that its desolation is NEAR. Luke 21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
That is why SCOTUS looking at international laws in making their decisions is so alarming.............

100% in agreement on that.

24 posted on 05/21/2010 1:46:33 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Liberal Logic: Mandatory health insurance is constitutional - enforcing immigration law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Consensus? A consensus of libtard politicians? Each country gets one vote?

How many countries have conservative leadership? Certainly conservative leaders are outnumbered by tin-pot dictators.


25 posted on 05/21/2010 1:50:19 PM PDT by CPOSharky (What outrage will the administration foist upon We the People that will be the last straw?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
26 posted on 05/21/2010 2:17:30 PM PDT by ronnyquest (There's a communist living in the White House! Now, what are you going to do about it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
The United States... said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision... 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... Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
IOW, Clinton and the rest of the administration is lying -- there is no change at all in US policy, just in the semantics, one of the favorite forms of lie among leftists. Thanks Nachum.
27 posted on 05/21/2010 4:29:39 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Maybe struck down was a bad phrase - I don't know of a blatantly unconstitutional treaty, such as this would be, that has been ratified. The point is that a treaty is legally considered no different from a law passed by Congress. If it's unconstitutional, it's void - even if it makes it through ratification. They both are subject to the court system.
28 posted on 05/21/2010 5:16:23 PM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: green iguana
I don't know of a blatantly unconstitutional treaty, such as this would be, that has been ratified.

OK, allow me to offer this treatment of the topic. It discusses a notable example that is an absolute outrage. If you find that informative, there are more like it here.

29 posted on 05/21/2010 7:07:52 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Author and date is just to the right of the first paragraph...

Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT


30 posted on 05/21/2010 7:11:27 PM PDT by deks (So will Obama sign a bill that requires native Hawaiians to show a birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deks

Ah. Thanks for that.


31 posted on 05/21/2010 7:12:43 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

It never hurts to repost this for vigilance. There are probably many who have not heard of it yet. Thanks for all of the work you do in posting articles.


32 posted on 05/21/2010 7:25:35 PM PDT by deks (So will Obama sign a bill that requires native Hawaiians to show a birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: deks

U.S. Support for the Arms Trade Treaty

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 14, 2009

Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.

The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations. As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.

On a national basis, the United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the “gold standard” of export controls for arms transfers. On a bilateral basis, the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions. Multilaterally, we have consistently supported high international standards, and the Arms Trade Treaty initiative presents us with the opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes.

The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons. We look forward to this negotiation as the continuation of the process that began in the UN with the 2008 UN Group of Governmental Experts on the ATT and continued with the 2009 UN Open-Ended Working Group on ATT.

PRN: 2009/1022

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130573.htm


33 posted on 05/21/2010 7:48:55 PM PDT by deks (So will Obama sign a bill that requires native Hawaiians to show a birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: deks

There’s some information here too...

http://www.armscontrol.org/node/3909


34 posted on 05/21/2010 8:06:49 PM PDT by deks (So will Obama sign a bill that requires native Hawaiians to show a birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I’m sorry, but that guy’s totally wrong - bordering on being a nutcase wrong.

Treaties, even ratified ones, don’t work like that.


35 posted on 05/22/2010 5:32:14 PM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: green iguana
Treaties, even ratified ones, don’t work like that.

The hell they don't. I give you the Endangered Species Act, which lists treaty powers for its authority, including the Convention on Nature Protection cited in the article.

USC Title 16, Section 1531:

the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to—

(A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;

(B) the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;

(C) the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;

(D) the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries; (E) the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;

(F) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora;

Other international agreements.

You asked for a treaty usurping powers exceeding Constitutionally enumerated powers and I gave you one. Too bad you don't like it; it's just the way the system works today.

I’m sorry, but that guy’s totally wrong - bordering on being a nutcase wrong.

BTW, these people don't think I'm wrong, or a "nutcase."

36 posted on 05/22/2010 6:02:16 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Sorry about that - I retract my previous comments. I was a bit hasty in reviewing the links you sent, but have since remedied that.

That’s some good work - gave me a lot to think about.


37 posted on 05/24/2010 9:27:58 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: green iguana
Not a problem. I am responsible for all the work on that articles page. The first four represent a very serious body of work that should be taken in sequence.

I might also recommend the picture book, The Responsible Party. Caution: it is an Acrobat pdf of over 40MB.

38 posted on 05/24/2010 9:51:43 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson