Skip to comments.The Senate DOES NOT need to ratify a UN treaty for us to be bound by it!!!
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.
Is it true?
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?
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.
We’re bound by the IRS. That’s all Obama cares about.
Because nothing says "Come and Take it" better than joing your local constitutional militia.
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.
I would recommend a much more painful part of their anatomy.
I don't think so.
If Obama signs it, it should be a sign to the American people that he is not fit for office.
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.
The Constitution, Plain and Simple
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ll have their weapons when I pry them from their cold dead hands.It works both ways.
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.