Posted on 06/11/2013 11:59:22 AM PDT by yoe
A majority in the U.S. Senate has told President Barack Obama not to do it. There’s no doubt that an overwhelming majority of Americans would oppose it — if the media ever told them about it.
Nonetheless, this past Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Obama will sign a controversial gun-control treaty promulgated by the United Nations. “We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official languages is completely satisfied,” Kerry said in a prepared statement.
The Rest…HERE
(Excerpt) Read more at revolutionradio.org ...
I hear he’s dried up your supply of ammo....?
And guess what, the minute he does that and nothing is done to remove him from office is the moment that the so-called “rule of law” becomes extinct. It will be everyone for himself and anything goes.
The executive holds the sole authority to determine whether to sign a proposed treaty or not.
His signature holds no authority other than to note that it has been accepted for review by the Senate...even if Clinton lied to the rest of the world about that fact, and somehow convinced many of their leaders his signature meant more.
If he signs it and no one does anything about it, then we’re fine.
Please provide details.
I thought that a treaty not ratified by the Senate is assumed to be the law?
You think a bunch of low-ranking plebiscites are going to stand guard at an armory or ammo depot to protect Janet’s stash when a few hundred (or thousand) locals show up with scoped hunting rifles and AR15s?
No. Sorry to rain on your pity parade, but a treaty must be ratified by the Senate before it becomes effective.
Once you are sighted in every round sent down range counts!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2907317/posts
There is some dispute of this. But I’ve no doubt that Obama will go through with enforcing its provisions without the senate. And I’ll be interested to see if he actually submits it to the senate for ratification and if the senate actually brings it up for a vote.
I thought that a treaty not ratified by the Senate is assumed to be the law?
That would completely negate the Senate’s role in what is just a step short of a Constitutional Amendment. What would the President ever bother to submit it to the Senate, since the Senate can’t vote on it until he submits it to them?
Without some other authorization, an unratified treaty is just scrap paper.
Signing a treaty means nothing under our system other than it has been sent to the Senate for Ratification. So let him sign until his little heart is content...
Well presidents can and have enforced treaties in the past before they are ratified, with the caveat that they can only enforce what is currently permitted under existing law. So for instance, Obama could not use a un-ratified treaty as justification to create a gun registry, because federal law already prohibits a gun registry.
The Won don’t need no stinkin’ Congress, SCOTUS or Constitution.
Obama can always attempt to comply by Executive order...which can be overturned by the next President...as it’s not really accepted as a treaty. There are actually a number of times that has been done...like when we announce an attempt to act in accordance with a Geneva Convention, but decline to actually become a signatory (which requires Senate ratification).
u
Cotton linked to a claim which might say that the UN would consider us signatories to something, but doesn’t say we do.
That might say that the UN has decided to recognize us as signatories, but not that the US would recognize it.
Let him sign it. The Senate will never ratify it. Clintoon signed stuff that never got ratified. A lot of president’s have. Its annoying and infuriating but it won’t ever go into effect and anyway its totally unconsitutional.
From your FR link:
Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
It pretends to be, but no.
This goes out to the Threat Matrix Ping List. Anyone wanting on or off, you know the routine, I think.
Correct. US government respect for treaty provisions upon signature alone as a matter of "customary international law" is illegal. Unfortunately, it has also been the "customary" practice of the US government since 1979.
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.