Posted on 07/21/2012 9:23:04 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn
“There should be a law that requires any UN treaty be passed by more than 2/3 of the Senate and House before it can pass. Does anyone know what the current requirements are?”
Presently, 2/3rds of the Senate and presidential approval.
Since I don’t trust 90% of the overlords in D.C., I would also support a higher approval requirement.
“Romney should declare he won’t sign any UN treaties until members like Iran, Cuba and Venezuela get serious about the human rights outlined in the UN charter.”
That would be a welcome move and would have a lot of popular support. It’s time we stopped wasting our time pretending serious matters can be generated by the United Nuisance.
“I think the US senate should do two things. First of all, in exchange for killing these internationalist abominations, they should again assert their right to approve *all* treaties. In recent years, various presidents have tried to create “treaties called something else”, that are “sub-treaties” or “agreements”, that can bind the United States, but without the approval of the senate. This has to stop. If necessary, the senate should sue the president, to be heard before the SCOTUS, with the idea that they would declare all such agreements null and void, unless approved by the senate.”
Excellent points. I will never forget G. W. Bush going to Africa and “pledging” billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fight their AIDs problem, like the money was coming out of his own pocket.
I’m for withdrawing from the UN and stopping all foreign welfare. And I would support the Senate putting a stop to the unilateral presidential action you mentioned.
That will never be done with the Dims in control of the Senate, of course, and is unlikely with someone like McConnell in charge. It would take someone like DeMint, Mike Lee, or Rand Paul to bring that to a head.
“Our Jim term limited himself so unless Mitt picks him for VP the next time you will see him is in the 2016 GOP primaries running for Prez if Romney lives up to our expectations and screws up.”
Nothing would make me happier than have DeMint in the Oval Office, restoring dignity to that office and constitutional governance. From your lips to God’s ears.
Move UN the headquarters there...
Hold foreclosure sale on homes of all diplomats and workers...
Add names of all UN personnel (including U.S. citizens) to terrorist watch list...
This is one of the few times when it would be essential for a POTUS to lead, that being, to *limit* the powers of his office that had been usurped by his predecessors. He would have to start, and would require the cooperation of the congress to make it happen. Among other things:
1) To block the future use of the Presidential Signing Statement, which usurps both legislative and judicial powers.
2) No more appointment of “Czars” not approved by the senate but with cabinet level powers and appropriations available to them.
3) To prevent the future use of Presidential Proclamations to seize state lands, and to return the bulk of such lands already taken.
4) The restoration of a strong War Powers Act and the Posse Comitatus Act. Establishment of strict and narrow criteria under what circumstances a national state of emergency can be declared, and what powers the president can assume without congressional approval during such an emergency, and for how long.
5) The reduction of executive branch police powers to just federal police agencies, and the consolidation of these 100+ organizations into just a few. e.g., the Department of Education and other non-police agencies do not need a SWAT team of their own.
While not an inclusive list, this would be a great start.
Americans abroad are not asking for help, but rather for residency-based taxation.
“Americans abroad are not asking for help, but rather for residency-based taxation.”
I don’t think you need a treaty for that...
I'm thinking that this "spokesman" probably doesn't understand what I'm going to post below. If by "addressed" he means that they can approve of and allow abortion if they want to, he definitely does not.
-- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765) "Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." -- William Blackstone "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." -- William Blackstone "[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made." -- John Locke, Two Treatises on Government"This natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.”
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.