Morris: Civilian gun ban to be signed July 27

Fox News Channel (no link) | 7/5/12

[PhatHead]

And all Senators were present. How is that even remotely analogous to the idea that a vote excluding 49 Senators from even attending would be possible?

[InterceptPoint]

Last time I checked it required 2/3 of the Senate to vote to ratify a treaty. I know that sometimes they try some BS where the president makes an "agreement" rather than a "treaty" like NAFTA, but this is an actual treaty. Will the Republicans vote for it or not? I hope so but I never bet against their spinelessness.

It really shouldn't take 31 posts on Free Republic to finally get to the truth of the matter. Freepers should really spend a little more time reading the Constitution before they start firing away.

I think the chances of two thirds of the Senate voting for this Treaty are approximately ZERO.

[CodeToad]

"Obama needs 67 votes to ratify a treaty; he HAS 53. Even adding in the usual RINOs, he won’t make it to 67."

Constitution: Article 2 Section 1: "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; "

That is not 67 required. Only 2/3rds present are required to vote for a treaty to ratify it.

[Jim Noble]

I would argue that any treaty in violation of the Constitution fails to meet the "under the Authority of the United States" requirement

More importantly, the Supreme Court agrees with you.

[CodeToad]

“:excluding 49 Senators from even attending would be possible?”

You assume they WANT to be present.

[Sudetenland]

LOL!!!

You are not going to see John Cornyn or Orrin Hatch and probably not Lindsey Graham or Jon Kyl voting for this treaty. I doubt even McCain or McConnell would do so.

[SampleMan]

They come to my door to take away my guns, they had better be ready. Lock and load!

If you wait until they are at YOUR door, it is too late.

[Drill Thrawl]

Treaties can’t be passed through reconciliation. Are there really enough RINOs willing to commit career suicide and vote for this?

Sadly yes.

[Dr. Sivana]

Ok, you have convinced me with good, sound arguments.

This of course begs the question as to why we would sign treaties that contradict the Constitution, much less submit them to the Senate.

[CodeToad]

“The only thing that supercedes the Constitution is a corrupted Supreme Court.”

Well said. Say it often because it is true. I can easily see Injustice Roberts claiming while the treaty itself is not in effect, the rest of the rules and regulations, which Congress left wide open for the president to make law as he pleases, is in effect, even if such rules and regs go against the 2nd.

[privatedrive]

The power to write law has been subsumed by the Supreme Court. As of now, the Judicial Branch writes law and the Administritative Branch enforces it.

We The Poeple, and our Representatives, the Legislative Branch, have abdicated relevance in federal government.

The only hope we have now lies with the States.

[NELSON111]

I think some here either 1) Like stirring the pot; 2) Aren't very smart about the constitution; 3)Are clueless about politicians desires to stay in power; 4) Like wrapping themselves in tin foil or 5) are multi-taskers and can do all five of the above...at the same time.

First of all...a treaty does NOT trump the constituion when it violates the constitution or the Bill of Rights. Second, it takes 67 votes. On WHAT PLANET are you on if you think they will get even 40 votes? Don't give me your list of RINO's. Give me a break. Go get more tinfoil.

These guys like power...and they know this would be the end of them. This is a Dick Morris Special. A "Hey Right Winger...Look at Me" number to get the most ignorant of the base stirred up into a frenzy.

Does The ONE want to take the guns away? Yep. Does he want this treaty signed and ratified? YEP!

As someone else said...and I'll rephrase: OH PLEASE OH PLEASE...OH PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP do this! PLEASE sign this and send it to the senate.

We'll hang it around O's neck like a millstone. It's a FATAL issue for him. LET HIM bring it up. LET HIM try. I HOPE he does.

When your enemy is making a mistake...DON'T STOP HIM.

[privatedrive]

Indeed. The game has changed. All this talk about the Constitution is purely academic.

[MissMagnolia]

Thank you! :-)

As to the second part of your comment re: outrageous shenanigans ..... totally agree. If they were willing to do F&F to gin up numbers as a justification for gun control (which I believe they did & deaths had to happen for it to be ‘successful’), Barkie Boy/Dems will stop at nothing to get what they want.

[JimRed]

They will send your local cops and other local officials first.

Don't forget, when it starts, WE KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE.

[PhatHead]

Now I know you are just kidding around. Good one!

[CodeToad]

“Second, it takes 67 votes. “

See my post #123 and let’s us know if 67 is actually required.

[JimRed]

Since when do we trust FactCheck?

[redgolum]

Yes, and they know where you live.

[OneWingedShark]

A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.

A treaty cannot supersede the Constitution for the United States, for the simple reason that the authority to accept or reject said treaty is delegated by that very Constitution... a closer reading of the clause may indicate the 'constitution' in question is a state constitution yielding something like:
us Constitution > Treaty > State Constitution