Posted on 06/14/2012 2:24:59 PM PDT by jazusamo
Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday argued against ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty, calling the royalties that U.S. companies would have to pay under the pact “a new idea of enormous consequence.”
Under the treaty, industrialized countries would pay royalties to lesser developed nations for profits made while exploiting unclaimed energy resources, Mr. Rumsfeld told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
He said this type of wealth redistribution is a “novelty with no clear limits” that also could be applied to space resources in the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Quite true and simply said.
Those six 4 star generals are falling right in line with Obama and the globalists.
They know the US Constitution abdicates national legal authority to, ratified by the Senate, the dictates of international treaties.
If a socialist Obama can't rule America a socialist UN will—and you thought the LAST lame duck congress damaged the country.
It would mean little to Zer0 because he'll be gone but that could backfire big time on the RATS that will still be around. I wonder if enough of them would prevent that to avoid a future backlash. A lot of Dems in Wisconsin had enough of the unions and they broke with the party.
Filibuster? This is a treaty and requires 67 votes.
LOST is far more than it seems, The UN would control ALL WATERWAYS that empty into the sea, forget getting a fishing license from the State and buy one from The UN.
My Pastor said to call our SENATORS and tell them to vote NO on LOST...
Good for Donald Rumsfeld to step up and try to stop the awful LOTS treaty.
It does nothing but surrender US soverignty
Another bad idea from the Free Trader Globalists. Fortunately with the EU crashing down, more and more are seeing that Free Trade Globalism is an absolute failure....there is never any economic gain from surrender soverignty
The Constitution specifies "two thirds of Senators present concur," not two thirds of the Senate. That means a treaty can be ratified legally with 34 votes. You either know better and are lying, or you are a clueless idiot, or you haven't read the Constitution (which fits). Take your pick.
Treaties have been ratified by voice vote with no record of a quorum, no committee vote, and no recorded vote.
So if the treaty makes it out of committee and onto the floor, what will the vote totals be?
It depends upon how many are there and what degree of evil Harry Reid thinks he can sneak by. Treaties have been ratified without any committee vote, no record of a quorum, and no recorded vote. "Two thirds of Senators present." has been a critical (and intentional) flaw in the Constitution ever since Patrick Henry pointed it out at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. As a result, a treaty can be ratified legally with as few as 34 votes today, but I doubt "legally" would constrain Harry Reid one bit if he thought he could get away with it.
So, you tell me. In a lame duck session and facing an incoming wave of conservatives, I'd bet "not many." While we do have DeMint, we don't have a Jesse Helms on the watch. Hence, pandering your statist complacency is a treasonous thing to do.
They need to be not just dismissed from their positions once Obama is removed...they need to be prosecuted. Perhaps one of them will try and cut a deal and testify under oath how they became Obama's communist agenda complicitors.
Well said, that’s exactly what should be done.
Needs 2/3s vote of the Senate to approve this. If there are any ‘Pubbies in the Senate when the vote goes down, its pretty unlikely to get approved...
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.