Posted on 03/16/2013 11:28:27 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Secretary of State John Kerry voiced his support on Friday for an international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global arms trade, but restated Washington’s “red line,” affirming that it will not accept limits on U.S. domestic gun ownership.
The U.N. General Assembly voted in December to hold a final round of negotiations March 18-28 on what could become the first international treaty to regulate international weapons transfers after a drafting conference in July 2012 collapsed because the United States and others wanted more time.
Arms control campaigners say one person every minute dies worldwide as a result of armed violence and a convention is needed to prevent the unregulated and illicit flow of weapons into conflict zones fueling wars and atrocities.
“The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” Kerry said in a statement. …
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Something is in this to line Kerry’s pocketbook...
Maybe they will start smuggling guns in gallon ketsup containers....
Guns do not fuel conflicts.
Anybody remember Rwanda?
Hate, greed, communism and Muslims fuel conflicts.
The “secret” support by this administration for the UN arms treaty will certainly help their gun control legislation push! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Every day, the socialist reveal their hand and their stated goals of full confiscation of all firearms in the hands of every American!
We must all fight back, the UN had better sit up and take notice, the American people are not the “subjects” they are used to cajoling in other countries, we will fight back!
If this is signed....we have to get Congress to reject it within 30 days or it is law. This is how Obama and company are going to (without them taking the heat) bring gun laws to America............in my opinion
Shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear that Kerry endorses the proposed treaty albeit with some temporary reservations.
“You’ve crossed my red line! Oh, never mind.”
Please explain. I thought Congress had to ratify treaties by positively voting on them.
I have also heard (but am uncertain of accuracy here) that if there is no explicit rejection, the Executive Branch can act as if the treaty is pending ratification--but it does not have to.
Don’t you believe it. They want to try to end run around the 2nd ammendment and take the guns. Sorry Kerry treaties don’t trump the Constitution and there ain’t 67 votes in the Senate for this stinker.
Oh that is just so rich and we are running guns in Mexico, Benghazi, where else and we are going to sign a treaty to stem the illict flow of arms around the world?
I’m sure that will come as a relief to Bashir Assad...
That’s big of him...
I believe you’re wrong on that. The Senate must ratify any and all treaties before we’re obligated by them. That will not happen, even in these trying times.
TC
We are both correct. It depends on which type it is:
““Signature” is a process that has different legal meanings depending on the circumstances in which it is performed. A distinction is made between “simple signature”, which is subject to ratification, and “definitive signature”, which is not subject to ratification.
The “simple signature” applies to most multilateral treaties. This means that when a State signs the treaty, the signature is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. The State has not expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty until it ratifies, accepts or approves it. In that case, a State that signs a treaty is obliged to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty. Signature alone does not impose on the State obligations under the treaty. For states this usually means that the international agreement has to be put before the national parliament for approval, thereby giving the people a direct say in the external activities of the state.
The “definitive signature”, in contrary, occurs where a State expresses its consent to be bound by a treaty by signing the treaty without the need for ratification, acceptance or approval. A State may definitively sign a treaty only when the treaty so permits. To make the comparison: a definitive signature has the same force as a simple signature, which is followed by ratification.” http://europatientrights.eu/countries/signing_and_ratifying_a_treaty.html
You apparently have a degree of technical understanding of constitutional law that exceeds my own. But I stand by my statement that no international arms control treaty signed by only the USAmbassador to the UN, or even the SecState, will obligate Americans. Kind of like
Executive Orders.
TC
You apparently have a degree of technical understanding of constitutional law that exceeds my own. But I stand by my statement that no international arms control treaty signed by only the USAmbassador to the UN, or even the SecState, will obligate Americans. Kind of like
Executive Orders.
TC
I think these UN arms treaties are intended only to regulate US arms trade.
Unfortunately, the Constitution does not support that.
Actually someone will need to dig out the correct minimum number as it does not indicate a quorum is needed.
Assuming...
quorum - The number of senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm
That being so, the correct number of yes votes would be 34. A simple majority consisting of 51 Senators to form the quorum and two thirds of 51 is 34
And that is assuming the communists are gracious enough to conduct a roll call vote.
The Constitution states...
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
I would be looking for a midnight vote on Christmas eve or some other form of "most transparent administration ever" communist verbal filth.
If someone knows this to be incorrect please jump in.
.
Save your breath its going to take 67 votes and they are not there. This treaty has no chance of passing.
Yeh pretty much thats the way I feel about it.
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.