Skip to comments.Obama To Sign Anti-Second Amendment U.N. Anti-Gun Treaty
Posted on 07/10/2012 1:47:25 PM PDT by no-llmd
The United Nations is putting the finishing touches on an Arms Trade Treaty that transcends borders and may even trample our Constitutional right to bear arms. Every indication is that the president will sign it.
Like the New Start and Law of the Sea treaties before it, as well as the Kyoto Protocol and Agenda 21, the Arms Trade Treaty being finalized at the U.N. this month is one of those feel-good, can't-we-all-get-along pieces of parchment whose net effect is to accomplish little except to eat away at American sovereignty and freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
I used to think that way too, until Roberts upheld ObamaCare as constitutional ...
Thank you for mentioning that little gem.
If King Barack tries to enforce this, we will find out where the loyalties of our military and police lie: with the Constitution and the Republic, or with the King.
Part of me dreads such a thing; but another part of me thinks it will be better to have the truth out in the open for all to see.
Can’t wait, let’s get it started. 1,000 more rounds coming in this week. Over 500 rounds in loaded mags will be on standby. That’s just one firearm.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
I wouldn’t want that bet. The unfortunate reality is, however, 2/3 of Senators present. That said, I doubt it will happen and hope it won’t because I’m too old and tired to get involved in any more wars. Trite current tagline still holds.
Gritty is correct. There is a big difference between 2/3 of the full membership of the senate and 2/3 of the senators present. The US Constitution specifically says in Article II that only 2/3 of the senators present are necessary to ratify a treaty:
He [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...
This means that 67 votes are not required to ratify a treaty unless the full senate is present at the vote. The minimum quorum of senators necessary to do business is 51 senators and therefore, the minimum number of senators necessary to ratify a treaty is 34 senators while 67 senators is the largest possible number of senators needed to ratify a treaty.
I stand corrected.
>> Not so. To ratify a treaty, the Constitution requires 2/3 approval by the full Senate — i.e., 67 votes.
I’m under the impression a number of RINOs in the Senate are amenable to this charade.
All treaties must be approved by the Senate with a 60% super majority vote or the treaties are meaningless,
You mean like how King Barack granting amnesty to illegals is meaningless because Congress didn’t approve it? The King don’t need no stinkin Congress.
I like your photo so much I’ve apprehended it. Hope you don’t mind. If FReeperville had avatars I paste that one in right now. Hmm all my rifles and hand guns just disappeared. I wonder where they went.
>>This is a genuine line in the sand for many<<
Maybe the faster it breaks, the faster it can be fixed.
Could get pretty ugly for a spell though.
It’s a treaty, so it needs two-thirds of the Senate to vote for it before it can become law. The Liberal Messiah’s blessing is not enough. Right now, it’s still merely a proposal.
I heard it was called “Operation: Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammuntion.”
“may even trample our Constitutional right to bear arms.”
I guess this will go before the SCOTUS.
I guess this will go before the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS no longer upholds the Constitution by enforcing its limits on government power. It upholds what government wants to do. If our elected dictator signs it, and a suit it brought before SCOTUS, the court will side with the elected dictator.
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." - Justice John Roberts June 2012
Nice gif but what will you do when they equip all our boys, girls and confused with those baby blue brain buckets?