Posted on 05/18/2013 5:43:40 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
Interesting. I wonder if "2/3 of the Senators present" could subsequently withdraw from the treaty. It's gonna get busy. The Pubbies and Dems will be holding 2 or 3 votes a night each!
OK, a little bit of a disclaimer first. I do not agree with this but I have read about this before. The only thing I could find is in a footnote on Wikipedia’s list of U S treaties. Maybe tomorrow I will look around and see if I can find a better source. I do know there are people in our gov’t that don’t think senate approval is necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_United_States#Notes_and_references
However, not all international agreements are considered to be treaties requiring Senate concurrence. This is explained somewhat in a letter from U.S. Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard to Philippine Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago in connection with the RP-US Vishe other countries, derives from the President’s responsibilities for the conduct of foreign relations (Art. II, Sec. 1) and his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Senate advice and consent is not needed, inter alia, because the VFA and similar agreements neither change US domestic nor require congressional appropriation of funds. It is important to note that only about five percent of the international agreement entered into by the US Governments require Senate advice and consent.”. The letter is quoted in full in Footnote 42 of “G.R. No. 138570. October 10, 2000”. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
One would think. But other things might come into play here and that would vary with firing pin and the gun.
You might have to take off too much, if the laser etch is too deep (they’d have to make it deeper I’d think because of the age/wear #strikes thing). Then is a possible non-detonation of the primer, or worse if you altered the shape too much (more pointy), rupture the primer on impact.
The other thing to consider is just how frangible is the laser mark. I read once where a serial number that had been roll stamped was filed off and used in a murder and the gun recovered. Metalurgical analysis and some other techniques revealed the S/N by the change in the metal UNDERNEATH the S/N despite it being filed off.
Here, the case sample is much, much smaller, but analysis and image processing techniques are also much farther advanced that a couple of decades ago when I read about it.
Interesting! I’m going to do some research on that. Important topic these days. Even if something doesn’t NEED Congressional concurrence, I wonder if Congress might still have the authority to repudiate it. An example is EO’s. They’re presumed valid on just POTUS’ signature but Congress can still affirmatively nullify them if they choose to do so.
I know the tech you’re talking about. I could see that being used on a filed firing pin and recovering the number (though maybe not as it gets a lot of hammering which the outside of the frame does not and that might obscure the residual traces), but I definitely can’t see that residual stress being transferred to the primer in a was that could be read later. I’ll be amazed if NON-altered units function leave readable marks most of the time.
” It is important to note that only about five percent of the international agreement entered into by the US Governments require Senate advice and consent”
That part right there is scary.
Got that right!
I did find this
ASIL Insights U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty
By Curtis A. Bradley May 2002
http://www.asil.org/insigh87.cfm
On May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration announced that the United States does not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. John Bolton, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, sent a letter to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, stating that “the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty,” and that, “[a]ccordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.”
Snip/
While the policy merits of the Bush Administration’s announcement are of course open to debate, the announcement appears to be consistent with international law. There is nothing in international law that obligates a signatory to a treaty to become a party to the treaty, [6] and the Rome Statute itself (in Article 125) states that it is “subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States.” In addition, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that, upon signing a treaty, a nation is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty “until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty.”
Then there is that dang metal lathe in the basement....
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.