Treaty Negotiated In Secret – Hidden Even from Congressmen Who Oversee Treaties
Posted on 06/14/2012 7:25:28 PM PDT by Errant
The normally-reserved Yves Smith asks whether Obama should be impeached over it.
Democratic Senator Wyden – the head of the committee which is supposed to oversee it – is so furious about the lack of access that he has introduced legislation to force disclosure.
Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is so upset by it that he has leaked a document on his website to show what’s going on.
What is everyone so furious about?
An international treaty being negotiated in secret which would not only crack down on Internet privacy much more than SOPA or ACTA, but would actually destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. and all other signatories.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
If this is advertised then I suspect it will be implemented without any input from Congress, an Executive Agreement, as it were. Soon we will possibly have a similar momen twhen the USSC announces its Obamacare overturn. Either the kenyan will paraphrase President Jackson-”Justice Marahall has made his decision, now let him enforce it,” or he will simply ignore the court and begin to implement and enforce Obamacare contra the Court.
“Now does Congress have the balls to stand up to the president and his comrades?”
Uh, the answer would be NO. They wouldn’t want to be perceived as racist, would they?
The quoted Prof. Peter Dale Scott is a leftwing wacko. Very anti-internal security and was a supporter of the old Communist Party USA front, the National Committee to Abolish HUAC/HISC, among other groups.
I wonder why he is upset about this issue? Hmm, something is rotten and it’s not in Denmark.
Treaty Negotiated In Secret – Hidden Even from Congressmen Who Oversee Treaties
Maybe some of the democrats who support Hillary want to help Berry lose in November. If Berry stays another four years he will make it impossible for a democrat to win in 2016. I only hope they bring down the entire party with their infighting.
I believe only the Senate can vote to impeach a president.
Since Issa is a member of the House of Representatives, he has no ability to commence impeachment.
And since the Senate is controlled by democrats, there is no chance they will impeach Obummer.
The House is responsible for bringing articles of impeachment -- for any federal officer. Essentially, they serve as a grand jury.
The Senate is then responsible for convicting the federal officer. They act as a trial jury.
I guess that you missed that event when the House of Representatives IMPEACHED President Clinton just a few years ago? My how time flies...
The Senate holds the TRIAL after a President is IMPEACHED by the House, where Clinton was found ‘NOT Guilty’. In fact, the Senate can not hold a trial until a President has been IMPEACHED by the House of Representatives.
Glad to help you out with your mis-understanding...
dvwjr
“and they won’t ratify what they can’t read.”
Well, they did something like that before...but I don’t think they will fall for it again.
The unions will hate it because they won't be able to organize the workers in these industries and management can pay the lowest wages the market will bear.
The tree huggers will see the treaty leading to the proliferation of unregulated heavy(smokestack)industry.
Trial lawyers won't have any jurisdiction to file suits against these entities.
I stand corrected.
In my defense, I admit to trying to forget the Clinton years as much as possible.
Seeing as how Boehner and his buds in the House have no backbone, I can’t see impeachment gaining any traction in the House, even though Obama deserves it for so many reasons.
Thank-you for posting.
I just wish there were more House members with an “R” after their names who had some backbone.
Oregon PING
“It just goes on and on.”
Ad nauseum! Just when you think the most dastardly of things has occurred, there’s tomorrow’s.
November, faster please.
“I believe only the Senate can vote to impeach a president.”
That is not correct — the House votes to impeach, the resulting trial is held by the Senate. So he could be impeached, but not convicted.
You are being naive...”they won’t ratify what they can’t read.” Are you serious?
You seem to have forgotten...”You’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it.”
They don’t have to read squat, to pass anything....
You could use a little education. Allow me to quote from the linked article:
The person quoted was Alexander Hamilton discussing the negotiation of treaties in Federalist 75 and the necessity of keeping the House of Representatives out of the loop in the process of negotiation.
Wrongo! Article 2, section 2, clause 2 specifies that a treaty is ratified "provided two thirds of Senators present concur." That means 34 is the legal minimum for ratification with a bare quorum, but then treaties have been ratified with no record of a quorum or committee vote.
Placemark.
Things have changed since then. Congress has the oversight responsibilty of these treaties taking place. So therefore obamma and his comrades are refusing oversight from taking place as the law allows to happen.
Funny thing is that obamma has to get this treaty that he negoitated in secret, approved by the Senate, which at this time probably will not happen now. Yea!
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.