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

Skip to comments.

The Senate DOES NOT need to ratify a UN treaty for us to be bound by it!!!
TeaParty.org ^ | 7/11/2012 | Bulldog

Posted on 07/16/2012 6:21:06 PM PDT by Eagles6

It has just been brought to my attention that because of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which the US is apparently a signatory to, the UN will consider us bound to any treaty, including the ATT, that Obummer signs.  The Senate DOES NOT have to ratify it.  I couldn't believe it when I heard it so I researched it and found the treaty and sure enough that is exactly what it says.  Please read Article 12 of this treaty even if you don't read the rest of it.  Also watch the video from Dick Morris, he also talks about the UN trying to get the power to TAX US!!!  We are doomed if this happens.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: salt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last
Heard Twinkletoes talking about this on Hannity today.

Is it true?

1 posted on 07/16/2012 6:21:09 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!


Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


2 posted on 07/16/2012 6:23:29 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

The UN can keep us “bound” all they want, but if our Gov’t (Hopefully, under a new administration soon) chooses NOT to participate, what can they do?


3 posted on 07/16/2012 6:24:28 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

If any US official of any capacity says we’re bound by some UN treaty then they should be hung up by their thumbs.

BS, horse kaka, etc. We are NOT bound by any UN crap and we should ignore anything an unelected official (Clinton, and her master Obama) sign us up for...

So what if I ended with a preposition.


4 posted on 07/16/2012 6:26:04 PM PDT by CincyRichieRich (Keep your head up and keep moving forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich

We’re bound by the IRS. That’s all Obama cares about.


5 posted on 07/16/2012 6:29:12 PM PDT by tsowellfan (http://www.cafenetamerica.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
modernmilitiamovement.com

Because nothing says "Come and Take it" better than joing your local constitutional militia.

6 posted on 07/16/2012 6:29:40 PM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Article 12
Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature
1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when:
(a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
(b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that effect; or
(c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1:
(a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed;
(b) the signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty.

I don’t read it that way at all, especially 2b. Thats why the Senate votes on these things.


7 posted on 07/16/2012 6:29:40 PM PDT by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich
If any US official of any capacity says we’re bound by some UN treaty then they should be hung up by their thumbs.

I would recommend a much more painful part of their anatomy.

8 posted on 07/16/2012 6:30:28 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
You're claiming that the Vienna Convention actually ratified our Constitution?

I don't think so.

9 posted on 07/16/2012 6:30:49 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Roger Taney? Not a bad Chief Justice. John Roberts? A really awful Chief Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

If Obama signs it, it should be a sign to the American people that he is not fit for office.


10 posted on 07/16/2012 6:31:30 PM PDT by RC2 (Buy American and support the Wounded Warrior Project whenever possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
My "ratified" should be "amended".

Sorry.

11 posted on 07/16/2012 6:31:52 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Roger Taney? Not a bad Chief Justice. John Roberts? A really awful Chief Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
Even if true, I am not bound by this treaty.

They can have my weapons when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
And I believe that there are multiple tens of millions of others in this country that feel the same way.

12 posted on 07/16/2012 6:33:48 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
Found this:

The Constitution, Plain and Simple

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html

Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."

All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).

A TREATY MAY NOT DO OR EXCEED WHAT THE CONGRESS IS CHARGED TO DO OR WHAT IT IS FORBIDDEN TO DO. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY SUPERSEDES, OVERRULES, AND PRECLUDES ANY CONTRARY TREATY AUTHORITY.

Thus, if a proposed treaty would violate any provision of the Constitution, it may not even be seriously considered or debated, much less be ratified and implemented because the same restrictions that were placed by the Constitution on the U.S. Federal government are also imposed on any treaty provision.

TREATY EMBROILMENT IS SO DANGEROUS AND SO IMPORTANT, THAT TO FURTHER LIMIT AND RESTRICT THEIR MAKING, ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 2 ORDERS THAT 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; [EMPHASIS ADDED.]"

This provision accomplishes two things: 1) it prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home."(1)

Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.

13 posted on 07/16/2012 6:33:48 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Huh?


14 posted on 07/16/2012 6:35:33 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet
A TREATY MAY NOT DO OR EXCEED WHAT THE CONGRESS IS CHARGED TO DO OR WHAT IT IS FORBIDDEN TO DO. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY SUPERSEDES, OVERRULES, AND PRECLUDES ANY CONTRARY TREATY AUTHORITY.

Yes.

15 posted on 07/16/2012 6:36:43 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
The federal government cannot do by treaty what it does not have the power to do in it's own right.

No foreign government or entity can grant power to the US Government over the States or the People. Attempting to do so would be an act of war.

16 posted on 07/16/2012 6:36:48 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Mark


17 posted on 07/16/2012 6:37:01 PM PDT by wolf24 (Operor non calco in mihi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

It’s the latest favorite fallacy of the bipartisan political regulator class. They can do anything they want to, and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them. So just give up.

Slow business down more noticeably. Starve the B for real. See how long she continues to huff and puff about how big and bad she is.


18 posted on 07/16/2012 6:38:31 PM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
Huh?

I believe that the US Constitution states that the US Senate must ratify every treaty. The fact that we signed the Vienna Convention does not change the Constitution. We can say anything we like. We can sign anything we like. The fact is that the US Senate must ratify every treaty.

The only way to change that is the amend the US Constitution, and signing the Vienna Convention is not one of the ways to amend our Constitution.

19 posted on 07/16/2012 6:39:44 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Roger Taney? Not a bad Chief Justice. John Roberts? A really awful Chief Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

I’ll have their weapons when I pry them from their cold dead hands.It works both ways.


20 posted on 07/16/2012 6:40:02 PM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

I should have added that Morris said that it would be in force until the Senate votes it up or down. Reid just wouldn’t bring it up hence de facto agreement until such time...


21 posted on 07/16/2012 6:40:36 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

B/S!


22 posted on 07/16/2012 6:40:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

The UN can pass or ratify anything it wants.....all they have to do is enforce it....

They going to send in 100,000 blue helmets to cover our streets?


23 posted on 07/16/2012 6:40:51 PM PDT by Popman (When you elect a clown: expect a circus...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

They can consider us bound in one hand and go chit in the other and see which opne fills up.

Send in the Blue Berets and prepare to bury a bunch of them.


24 posted on 07/16/2012 6:41:54 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I agree but it seems that we are living in a post constitutional federation these days.


25 posted on 07/16/2012 6:44:10 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

A treaty cannot bind you to future, unwritten treaties.


26 posted on 07/16/2012 6:49:29 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich

“”So what if I ended with a preposition””

I quit worrying about that years ago when Bill Buckley said it was OK. If it was good enough for him, it’s good enough for us!


27 posted on 07/16/2012 6:49:47 PM PDT by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
ping
28 posted on 07/16/2012 6:52:17 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Clinton signed on to the Koyoto treaty but the Senate never ratified and nobody, not even the UN, ever considered us bound by it.


29 posted on 07/16/2012 6:53:45 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

To be quite honest the constitutionality of the UN treaty
and the attempt by the UN to tax America is irrelevant.

It would only be relevant if congress and the rest of the
parasites in Mordor on the Potomac cared about what the constitution said, required or prohibited....THEY DON’T.

Thus if the traitors in DC decide to allow the UN to tax us
then that is what will happen. If the traitors in DC decide
to misconscrew (sic) the UN small arms treaty to allow for the prohibition of guns in America then that is what will happen. Our only options in reality will be to either bend
over and grab our ankles or to take up arms and send as many of them to hell as we can.


30 posted on 07/16/2012 6:54:09 PM PDT by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

Exactly.

UN can consider we are bound by any treaty all they want, regardless of who signs it.

It is not and will not be recognized by us.


31 posted on 07/16/2012 6:54:09 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert


32 posted on 07/16/2012 6:57:11 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Completely untrue. Article II states that president needs 2/3 of the senate to ratify a treaty. It doesn’t matter if the UN recognizes a treaty if the U.S. government does not.


33 posted on 07/16/2012 6:58:59 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Let the blue helmets try to enforce their crap on U.S. citizens.


34 posted on 07/16/2012 6:59:08 PM PDT by crosshairs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

I can envision “tarring and feathering” making a comeback in the future .... a very apt way of dealing with traitors, scoundrels, and corrupt politicians.


35 posted on 07/16/2012 7:00:40 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (Skittle pooping unicorns are more common than progressives with honor & integrity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2
If Obama signs it, it should be a sign to the American people that he is not fit for office.

You mean another sign.
36 posted on 07/16/2012 7:00:46 PM PDT by crosshairs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Oh for pete’s sake, of course it’s not true.

If it were, don’t you think some commie democrat prez would’ve just signed a treaty saying “No More U.S. Constitution Forever” by now???


37 posted on 07/16/2012 7:03:11 PM PDT by workerbee (June 28, 2012 -- 9/11 From Within)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder; P-Marlowe
when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed

Since the United States does not agree, then any signature would be invalid. The only way the US could agree would be for the Senate to ratify any given treaty.

IOW, a signature by Obama without the agreement of the US Senate would mean that "the state" had not agreed with the signature and the treaty would then not be binding.

There are a number of places in Article 12 in which the "state agree" language is used.

38 posted on 07/16/2012 7:03:30 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

They will try lots of sneaky tricks. Gun turn-ins followed by rewards for neighbor turning in neighbor. I predict this push to communism will end the opposite from past movements. There won’t be an additional 150 million farmers, busisness people and freedom lovers killed by evil tyrants. There will be a backlash on the communist supporters from those who know history and won’t go peacefully to their deaths.


39 posted on 07/16/2012 7:05:58 PM PDT by MtnClimber (To the left wrong is right, down is up and backward is "Forward")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet
And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home."(1)

Gotta wonder when this article was written. Since ratification of the 17th Amendment, which enabled POPULAR election of US senators, senators are no longer "selected" by their respective state delegations/governments and consequently are no longer directly beholden to the state. Their constituents are in fact the people back home. It's likely that ratification of the 17th was not a stellar moment for the sovereign states and it seems that history bears that out.

40 posted on 07/16/2012 7:07:03 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Popman

“The UN can pass or ratify anything it wants.....all they have to do is enforce it....

They going to send in 100,000 blue helmets to cover our streets?”

Blue helmets would quickly become blue targets.
The attrition rate would be staggering to say the least.


41 posted on 07/16/2012 7:08:40 PM PDT by davetex (Sick of moochers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

If this is true, then all we need to do is quit funding the UN - which we should do anyway. If they have no money, they have no power to do squat.....They, of all people, will not “work” for free.

Next up: kick their collective whining commie butts out of NY (and the US of A). Buh-bye.....


42 posted on 07/16/2012 7:10:23 PM PDT by Donkey Odious (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crosshairs

The “fun” part of discussing the UN’s blue helmets coming over here to enforce some UN treaty is trying figure out what country they will come from? Fiji has been a big contributor in the past as has Bangladesh. And who can forget the Pakistani troops behavior as portrayed in the movie Blackhawk Down? Troops from Middle Eastern countries? Please, I can’t laugh and type at the same time!!
Of course all the above troops would LOVE to come to America to enforce some UN mandate;looting and raping the Great Satan’s homeland would be great sport. I might worry about European troops, but to be honest, I think only their Special Ops troops would be worth a flip; and I suspect they would want nothing to do with a battle of any sort on American soil against armed American citizens. They probably remember what their grandfathers said about American soldiers in WWII.
If this present U.S. government,(or anyone in the future) thinks that calling the UN for help to enforce some unconstitutional law/treaty will do any good, well, I hope I am still around to watch. I can imagine the scene with the first plane of UN troops landing(crashing) at JFK as they televise the”historic” event.After that, all bets are off;dead UN troops allover.


43 posted on 07/16/2012 7:21:24 PM PDT by rustyboots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RC2

You’re dreaming.

If, by now, there are still people who think that Obama is qualified to be POTUS, nothing can or will change their minds.

Besides, those who vote for him are anti-gun anyway.


44 posted on 07/16/2012 7:23:41 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

There are not enough LEOs and blue helmets combined to round up the 10M+ firearms that have been purchased by Americans EVERY YEAR since 2008.


45 posted on 07/16/2012 7:34:31 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet
A TREATY MAY NOT DO OR EXCEED WHAT THE CONGRESS IS CHARGED TO DO OR WHAT IT IS FORBIDDEN TO DO. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY SUPERSEDES, OVERRULES, AND PRECLUDES ANY CONTRARY TREATY AUTHORITY.

"Of course if the treaty is a TAX..." - Chief Justice Roberts. ;-P

46 posted on 07/16/2012 7:37:40 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

there would be blue helmets with holes in them on my street. If he did this.....it would have grave consequences.


47 posted on 07/16/2012 8:38:38 PM PDT by Michigan Bowhunter (Michelle Obama slept with her husband after he made it with Larry Sinclair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rustyboots

They best be hiding those blue helmets. Sheriff Joe will profile their
foreign asses if they show up and put them in jail. Blue helmets and
pink underwear.........only the Ruskies could tolerate that fashion
statement.


48 posted on 07/16/2012 9:01:10 PM PDT by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RC2
revised

If Obama signs it, it should be a sign to the American people that he is not fit for office the fascist many of us thought he was in 2008.

Time to stand tall against the regime.

49 posted on 07/16/2012 9:03:49 PM PDT by llevrok (2012 : Elect Adults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
If it were, don’t you think some commie democrat prez would’ve......

We've never had any this nuts before is why. Close, but no cigar.

50 posted on 07/16/2012 9:06:16 PM PDT by llevrok (2012 : Elect Adults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next 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.

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