Posted on 03/23/2013 4:02:03 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
S.Amdt. 139 to S.Con.Res. 8
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
YEAs 53 NAYs 46 Not Voting 1
Not Voting - 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Was he present and not voting, or “indisposed”? He must be getting close to a hundred...
“es. A treaty can be legally ratified with 34 votes out of a quorum of 51 Senators. “
It won’t though. It will take 67 votes and they do not exist.
I see the CT delegation is doing exactly as I expected.
Well said. 46 Dems dumb enough to go on record and volunteering themselves to be arrested for treason.
He was watching The Lawrence Welk Show.
I understand it takes two-thirds present vote, but can they sign a treaty that nullifies any of the Bill of Rights?
Probably one he was a guest on.
>”Treasonous bastards!!!!”<
Anyone recall the last time we Hung, or is it Hanged, Treasonous Bastards?
Any Republican candidate (or PAC or issue advocate) can now run an honest TV ad that shows incontrovertible PROOF that his rat opponent (any of those listed) does not support the US Constitution. Let’s see how many have the guts to do so.
I take it you think a master of parliamentary procedure like Harry Reid can't figure out how to set up a vote against a GOP determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Worse, according to international law the US has been respecting for over forty years, the government is committed to the terms of the treaty from the moment of the signature of any officer, including Kerry.
“I take it you think a master of parliamentary procedure like Harry Reid can’t figure out how to set up a vote against a GOP determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”
Yeh OK and the Russians are getting ready to invade NYC :-)
“I understand it takes two-thirds present vote, but can they sign a treaty that nullifies any of the Bill of Rights?”
No they cannot. No treaty trumps the Constitution.
That’s what I thought. I’m sure the asshats will try anyway though.
Thank you Pollyanna.
I can cite a treaty that committed the entire United States economy and all of its lands to the potential for government control. It was ratified without record of a committee vote, or quorum by voice vote. The cover letter from the Secretary of State lied about its content. Don't believe it?
Of course, Hamilton lied about the treaty power in The Federalist #75, so in duplicity such affairs is hardly something new.
Don't believe it? Try me, but if you do, I'll expect a public retraction.
Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
Justia.com
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html
Excerpt:
“As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.”
TREATIES DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/Treaties.htm
Treaties
Curtis W. Caine, MD
Hacienda Publishing
[Excerpt:]
Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)
In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.
Thank you for the info and links.
Bookmark
From US Dept. of State website:
Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
No. The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.
Found here:
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm
They don't supersede it, either.
Like the difference between "cession" and "session".
</net nanny>
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.