Posted on 07/05/2012 5:46:45 AM PDT by pabianice
Dick Morris now on Fox. Morris says the UN Gun Ban Treaty is scheduled to be signed by Obama's U.S. ambassador to the UN on July 27. According to Morris, treaty will be rammed through by the lame duck Senate after the November election if the Democrats are still in charge. A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Interesting months ahead.
Treaties can’t be passed through reconciliation. Are there really enough RINOs willing to commit career suicide and vote for this?
Really?
Permit me to direct you to the following "BI-PARTISAN" Republi-Tard, RINO's and then tell us all that the ratification is "Highly unlikely?"
Brown, Scott
Collins, Susan
Cornyn, John
Graham, Lindsey
Hatch, Orrin
McCain, John
Kyl, Jon
McConnell, Mitch
Murkowski, Lisa
Snow, Olympia
And if it were in the Constitution it wouldn’t be spelled wrong!
Have you read the Constitution? Two-thirds of the Senate must approve the treaty which makes ramming it through a “lame duck Senate” nearly impossible even with the current configuration. And treaties DO NOT supercede the Constitution.
...except that they don’t play by the rules. The Constitution, laws, the people’s will, - - none of it matters to these people.
From a practical standpoint, should anyone try, whether obama, the Senate, the freaking UN, etc., they will essentially be declaring war on We, the People, because that will be how such a "treaty" will be heard and responded to.
>>> “Always a crowd-pleaser...”
A-yep. Thankee. BMFL
“A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution”
But not if it is violation of the rest of the constit...oh, wait, we have a president and a court that thinks the constitution means whatever they want it to say.
Be sure to take note of who votes for this in Congress.
It’s not you, it’s me.
You forgot my senator, Dick Lugar.
My Grandfather always said: "They may come for my guns but first they will get my expended ammo."
Obama would NOT need 67 votes out of 100. He just needs 2/3 of those physically present at a particular moment in time.
Suppose the Senate is in session, and there are but a handful of left-wing Senators present since the Senators are all scattered at their offices or in committee hearings.
The way this is written, any treaty could be passed at any time with say 34 out 51 (a usual quorum). What about 7 out of only 10 present if they carefully time it? What about 3 out of only 3 present when the left-wingers keep a running count? How many minutes does it take to ram through a vote with no regard for "Senatorial courtesy"?
Just last year 58 Senators signed letters to President Obama opposing participation in the treaty. That total includes 13 Democrats.
“A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Interesting months ahead.”
It does, does it?
Primarily I picked your post to respond to in order to compliment your choice of tagline: (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t. (M.Thatcher))
Nice - very, very nice. :o)
...but also to remind posters that treaty passage requires only a 2/3s majority AMONG THOSE PRESENT.
Considering the Constitutional and legal transgressions accumulating to the current Administration, I don’t put it past them to employ the most outrageous of shenanigans to enact this into law and then thumb their noses at the hapless GOP and citizens alike.
“Just last year 58 Senators signed letters to President Obama opposing participation in the treaty. That total includes 13 Democrats.”
That may be true, but knowing politics we must conclude that the UN has the needed mechanism to get US approval or else this would not be coming to a vote.
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.