Skip to comments.UPDATED: 34 Senators Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty [LOST to lose; America to win]
Posted on 07/16/2012 11:47:36 AM PDT by Hunton Peck
UPDATED 7/16/12: 4 additional senators have joined in opposition to LOST, including Mike Johanns (R-NE), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA). With 34 senators against the misguided treaty, LOST will not be ratified by the Senate this year.
Strong opposition is rising in the U.S. Senate to the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) that would subjugate American sovereignty to the whims of an international tribunal. To date, 30 Republican senators have signed onto a letter opposing LOST. It takes 67 votes to approve treaties in the Senate, so only 34 votes are needed to ensure defeat of this misguided treaty.
Why is LOST so harmful?
It would act as a backdoor Kyoto Protocol, forcing us into cap and trade policies that would destroy jobs and harm our economy. It would cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in international royalties to nations including state sponsors of terror like Sudan and undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabwe. Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton warned it would embolden China, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims. Radical environmental groups have lined up in support of LOST. President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the treaty as a threat to U.S. sovereignty.
Below is the text of the letter and the current list of senators who have joined in opposition. Senator DeMint is still working to collect more signatures.
The Honorable Harry Reid Majority Leader United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Leader,
We understand that Chairman Kerry has renewed his efforts to pursue Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.
By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution.
To effect the treatys broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.
If this treaty comes to the floor, we will oppose its ratification.
Jon Kyl Jim Inhofe Roy Blunt Pat Roberts David Vitter Ron Johnson John Cornyn Jim DeMint Tom Coburn John Boozman Rand Paul Jim Risch Mike Lee Jeff Sessions Mike Crapo Orrin Hatch John Barrasso Richard Shelby John Thune Richard Burr Saxby Chambliss Dan Coats John Hoeven Roger Wicker Marco Rubio Jim Moran Dean Heller Pat Toomey Chuck Grassley Mitch McConnell
Thank GOD for Sen. Jim DeMint! And if Grahamnesty votes for this thing it will be further writing on his tombstone for 2014.
How can we be sure Obama won’t just executive order this??
I’m surprised that the vote is that close. How many votes are necessary to ratify a treaty?
Rumsfeld had an excellent article in the WSJ about LOST Treaty and it is really a frightening threat to the sovereignty of the US. The law of the Sea Treaty is actually a big step toward the one world government redistribution through the regulation of trade, a real George Soros type of treaty.
I blasted my senator (Johanns) last week about switching his support. Evidently he must have received an email blast because this is a less than a week turnaround.
“How many votes are necessary to ratify a treaty?”
Two thirds of those present.
Outstanding news! Thank you, Sen. DeMint.
Obozo will just implement it anyway...........
Glad you did, I meant to but didn’t get to it. This should be such a no-brainer. I like Johanns in a lot of ways, but in some, he seems so wishy-washy. Go Huskers!
Yes, way past time to upgrade his Senate seat.
not enough votes in the senate for LOST to pass?, no problem. obozo will just send Luca to visit each of those senators prior to their voting and its a done deal. I wonder which one is now more powerful, the the mafia Don in Chicago or the obozo in the WH? Whore House works too.
The big porker Thad Cochran is always a ? on so many things. I wish he would just enjoy his retirement, 34 years is enough.
Amazing to me that a political person hasn't had an opinion years ago, one way or the other, about this treaty, which is so important to our sovreignty.-Tom
Lugar will probably vote for it, just to be a vindictive pr*ck.
After seeing an Obamanation as POTUS and the recent failure of SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution, I have become convinced the battleground must be fought in the halls of Congress.
The House and Senate are designed to be closer to the representation of voters of this country and we need a strong conservative majority on both houses to keep this country on the path our founders envisioned.
Congress makes the laws and can not support libs as Justices and can impeach any in the Executive or Judiciary but they need to have the balls to do so. We the people have a better chance with them than the other two branches.
Recall that George W. was doing some very non-conservative things like on immigration and Harriet Myers until we stopped him by making sure our voice was heard not by him but by our representatives and senators.
This treaty should be looked at the same way.
I sent Scott the article on why Reagan would still be against LOST. Put it on his Facebook page.
I sent Scott the article on why Reagan would still be against LOST. Put it on his Facebook page.
17th amendment kind of ended Sentors being close. I say, repeal the 17th and 16th too!
Lugar blew a 40 year career over support for crap like this.
Thankfully he did’t get to see this one passed before he retires to whatever state he calls home. (which hasn’t been Indiana since the 70’s)
When it’s completely defeated I’ll breathe a sigh of enormous relief. I first learned about this madness when GWB was president and have been terrified somehow it would squeak through. It’s a sell-out of our sovereignty of the highest order.
Lugar was one of the first to announce support years ago.
!!!! The next step is to push President Romney into revoking the treaty—which he can do unilaterally (the way W revoked the ICC signature on an unratified treaty).
LOST has been sitting around for 30 years for rats and folks like McCain and Lugar to find just one moment where they can get 66 votes in a lame-duck session. It’s time to put a stake in the heart of this monster. The only way to do that is the president “unsigning” the treaty.
Yes, remember how some sold out to obummercare? Olympia Snowe - good riddance.
I’m sure I don’t even need to look to see if our beloved republican senator from Alaska voted for this.
Wrote both my Senators in GA. Chambliss was already on board. I’m glad to see Isaakson finally commited.
Logic sez get more to oppose lest Kerry’s crowd pull some stunt during the lame duck.
I’m not the least bit interested in cooperating with the UN - except to help load up their crap and move them off our shores.
Now obummer suspending the constitution? That's entirely possible.
I thought Grassley was in favor of LOST.
Glad to see him in opposition...
The sad news is that it will come that close to passing.
Anyone who votes FOR this treaty is clearly guilty of violating their oath of office and should be charged with treason, given a fair trial, then hung on a gallows in front of the White House as a warning to other subversives.
May be an indication that Portman is the VP pick. I wrote Senator Sessions the other day and told him that if Portman voted to ratify the gun control treaty, he would sink Romney if he was on the ticket. I asked him to talk to some of his insane Republican colleagues who were considering voting for ratification to let them know how strong opinions were against it. That logic really probably applied to LOST as well. Maybe more calls and letters like mine made a difference.
Not sure why I follow with the 17th, why election of Senators by direct popular election is moving things away from the people’s choice compared to their being selected by the Individual States.
Seems the former is closer than the latter.
What am I missing?
I'll offer some comments...
Our States lose representation. Your representation isn't diminished in regards to the Federal Gov., but the individual States lose power to act of their own accord.
It goes to the base of Federalism and State's power to rein in federal power.
Remember the implementation of federal blood alcohol content legislation? The Feds blackmailed States into complying with a national standard or they would lose highway funding. If Senators were tightly controlled by State legislatures that BS would never have been pulled.
And as far as Senators being elected by the populace...how do you like your Senator being nothing more than a highly glorified Representative?
Doesn't the position rate a higher status than that? They're supposed to represent the States, not the individual Citizens. There is already representation for that on both the State and Federal level.
Just off the top o' me head.
States no longer have representation - there is no longer a layer of government to protect us from the Feds. It is that lack of protection [since the 17th] that I see as us people not having the representation we were meant to have.
Philman said it better -
Follow Sen. DeMint on Twitter.
I wrote my 2 Senators, Bennet and Udall, not sure it will do much good. Got a form letter from Bennet and a much more personal note from Sen. Udall. He indicated that as of yesterday he had received over 10,000 pieces of mail (E and Snail) on LOST.
>> Only 34? WTF are the other 66 thinking?
If “present” is the quorum, then these 34 Men must occupy the Senate 24 hours/day.
“I swear, American Revolution Pt II is NOT that far away.”
You cock the cannons again, and I’ll lead the fire teams......
“The House and Senate are designed to be closer to the representation of voters of this country...”
Actually the House is the body with a popular bent and I’d say it’s close to being that way as it is now.
The Senate is more problematic, supposed to represent the state’s interests, with a longer, more deliberative viewpoint. Right now it’s a little shy of Conservatives and led by a criminal majority leader Harry Reid with a half wit President in Joe Biden..... Nov.2012/Jan2013 can’t come soon enough.......
“Lugar blew a 40 year career over support for crap like this.”
Therein lies the core of the problem......”legislator,” “Senator,” or “Representitive,” or “Congressional aide” should never be a career choice/option. We’d be a lot better off with 535+ Joe the Plumbers in the Senate that go back to fixing toilets after a few years service to the nation, than what we have now....The DC commode is overflowing.....2012 should be the year of the plunger!
Right now we have a bunch of fools that don’t know that S**t flows downhill, bite their nails, and think every waking moment is payday.
33 men and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH):
“I’ll offer some comments...
Our States lose representation.”
Mr Philman, you have stated the case accurately and succinctly in your post. Thank you!
“She was more of a man than any of them.”
My thanks for your comments.
Dictator Obama can issue any dictate that he wants to because he KNOWS that there is not a RINO in Congress who will dare to Impeach him.
Let the bidding begin.
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.