Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sea Treaty all but dead, 34 GOP senators oppose
SFGate.com ^ | 7/16/12 | Donna Cassata - ap

Posted on 07/16/2012 1:14:46 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON (AP) — A treaty governing the high seas is all but dead in the Senate as two Republican senators announced their opposition Monday, giving conservative foes the necessary votes to scuttle the pact.

Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire — both mentioned as possible running mates for likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — said they had serious concerns about the breadth and ambiguity of the Law of the Sea treaty and would oppose it if called up for a vote. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate — 67 votes — to ratify a treaty; Portman and Ayotte bring the number of opponents to 34 along with Sens. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., and Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

The development was a blow to the Obama administration, military leaders and the business community led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who had argued that the treaty would improve national security and enhance U.S. standing in the world. They had pressed for ratification of the treaty, which was concluded in 1982 and has been in force since 1994. The United States is the only major nation that has refused to sign the pact.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and other conservatives have led the campaign against the treaty, contending that it would undermine U.S. sovereignty. DeMint heralded the latest development on Twitter, saying, "34 Senators now oppose LOST, sinking the misguided treaty."

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 112th; bho44; bhoun; dead; demint; lawofthesea; lawoftheseatreaty; lost; losttreaty; maritime; obama; oppose; seatreaty; senators
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

1 posted on 07/16/2012 1:14:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Only 34? Or are there more? I don’t like it being that close.


2 posted on 07/16/2012 1:16:58 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

B U M P


3 posted on 07/16/2012 1:17:47 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I hear, ya. a pox on the rest,, a bunch of boneheads. what do ya expect from rinos?


4 posted on 07/16/2012 1:18:14 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

So what happens if/when Obama signs this treaty and then enforces it without Senate approval?


5 posted on 07/16/2012 1:20:57 PM PDT by MeganC (If you are hell-bent on delaying maturity you will likely succeed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Those GOP voting “for” or merely “absent” are????


6 posted on 07/16/2012 1:21:19 PM PDT by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

When and if the GOP has sufficient control of the Senate, this is one of several treaties that need to be voted down to actually “kill” them. They persist in an undead state until the Dims can figure a way to slip them through otherwise.


7 posted on 07/16/2012 1:22:50 PM PDT by Ingtar ("As the light begins to fade in the city on the hill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Shouldn’t there be at least 49 Senators in opposition?


8 posted on 07/16/2012 1:24:18 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

posted earlier .. from Sen. DeMint’s office.

UPDATED: 34 Senators Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty [LOST to lose; America to win]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2907142/posts


9 posted on 07/16/2012 1:25:22 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Only 34 ???

My first thought also


10 posted on 07/16/2012 1:25:37 PM PDT by Java4Jay (The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Once again, “no difference between the two parties,” right? Riiiiight. How many Dems opposed this monstrosity?


11 posted on 07/16/2012 1:25:52 PM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

>> The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate — 67 votes — to ratify a treaty

What about the “present” factor?

If “present” is the rule, then the public is being misled into thinking there’s no possibility of a treaty to worry about.


12 posted on 07/16/2012 1:27:57 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge


13 posted on 07/16/2012 1:28:01 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Lamar! and Corker are not on the list. What a pity. They must not have seen the part that would force the TVA to remove everything from the rivers in Tennessee so that they can return to a “natural” state.


14 posted on 07/16/2012 1:28:27 PM PDT by Ingtar ("As the light begins to fade in the city on the hill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Praise the LORD!


15 posted on 07/16/2012 1:28:58 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

Or if someone ‘Roberts’ it at the last minute.


16 posted on 07/16/2012 1:28:58 PM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

You mean Harry Reid can’t “deem” it ratified?


17 posted on 07/16/2012 1:29:15 PM PDT by paddles ("The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

lol .. I still say ‘Ditch Mitch!’

It ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings anyway, shame about all the RMSPers lined up like good little rinos for soros..

It’s effectively been in effect since 1994..
hmm, who was President then?


18 posted on 07/16/2012 1:30:02 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LS

>> Once again, “no difference between the two parties,” right?

You’re absolutely right, there is a difference.


19 posted on 07/16/2012 1:30:33 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
From what I can tell, all the Dems and a pretty goodly number of Pubbies are for it. Plus there are a bunch of Vichy Generals and Admirals testifying for the treaty as well.

Traitorous bastards, all of them. Every one of these clucks should be run out of town on a rail.

20 posted on 07/16/2012 1:36:38 PM PDT by Gritty (Identity rooted in nothing more than the planet as a universal zip code is laughable - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Wow! Great news!


21 posted on 07/16/2012 1:41:43 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I hope that 34 figure is meant as 34+. I expect the dems to slavishly follow their dear reader, but I don’t like the idea 13 GOP Senators were willing to sign away our sovereignty.


22 posted on 07/16/2012 1:43:21 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
WTH! Are those 34 against it only bacause they are up for re-election 2012 ?
I want to know if those who support are up for re-election this year.
23 posted on 07/16/2012 1:44:24 PM PDT by MaxMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

> So what happens if/when Obama signs this treaty and then
> enforces it without Senate approval?

Nothing.

The president has admiralty, treaty or no.

Difference is, the next president can choose to ignore it, UNLESS it is a treaty.

I don’t like it being one-vote close, either.


24 posted on 07/16/2012 1:47:48 PM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
Only 34? Or are there more? I don’t like it being that close.

Could be planned that way. If I'm a senator who opposes LOST, and I know we already have enough to kill it, but for various reasons, I may not bother to voice an opinion one way or the other. Politicians are tricky like that.

25 posted on 07/16/2012 1:48:35 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax

I believe 11 GOP senators are up for re-election this year.

Is there a single dem senator who opposed this awful so-called treaty? I don’t think so.


26 posted on 07/16/2012 1:51:06 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (January 20, 2013.....The End of an Error)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I sent Johnny Isakson a no chit email Thursday and got a bunch of other people to do it on the same day. The guy is a total RINO. You cannot trust him to ever vote the right way. I’m glad to see he finally put his finger in the wind.


27 posted on 07/16/2012 1:51:41 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Sooooooo, 66 Senators are more than willing to give away our SOVERNITY!!!


28 posted on 07/16/2012 1:57:14 PM PDT by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
. . . but I don’t like the idea 13 GOP Senators were willing to sign away our sovereignty.

Totally right. We need to take names and kick a##es. I'm sure one of them is Richard Lugar who won't be back for the next congress.

29 posted on 07/16/2012 2:07:07 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Assuming a quorum of 51, treaty ratification only requires 34 Senators present.


30 posted on 07/16/2012 2:07:48 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate — 67 votes — to ratify a treaty; Portman and Ayotte bring the number of opponents to 34 along with Sens. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., and Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

BTW, this is a flat out lie, disinformation at its finest.

31 posted on 07/16/2012 2:10:09 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
So what happens if/when Obama signs this treaty and then enforces it without Senate approval?

Nothing.

False. The President can begin to enforce the treaty ratification or no, pursuant to a treaty that was never ratified but by which the USA has abided for forty years: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. That is why Bush rescinded the signature on the International Criminal Court treaty.

32 posted on 07/16/2012 2:14:24 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick; Joe Brower

Dick Morris is on Hannity now an stated Hillary will sign it on the 27th of this month. It will then be.signed by bho .... If the senate just sits on it an doesn’t bring it to a ratification vote then it will be valid till voted down.

I will go find the.link ...

Anyone else listen to Sean H’s show today an.hear this ?


33 posted on 07/16/2012 2:22:38 PM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

There may be more—you’d hope—but 34 is what we need and we got it.


34 posted on 07/16/2012 2:29:24 PM PDT by newzjunkey (It'll be Romney or Obama. There's no 'do over' for the gop primary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

http://www.dickmorris.com/d-day-for-gun-control/#more-9231

Bad news .....


35 posted on 07/16/2012 2:30:11 PM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Too busy playing multi-national bingo and other regulatory forms of looting the trough! These people are ‘empty suits’ that are only held accountable by a simple majority of voters every six years. Don’t rock the barge Baby!


36 posted on 07/16/2012 2:31:42 PM PDT by STD ([You must help] people in theĀ…feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

>> If the senate just sits on it an doesn’t bring it to a ratification vote then it will be valid till voted down.

I did a little research on it (I’m certainly no expert).

I don’t think a true treaty works that way, i.e. takes effect unless voted down.

There *are* some other forms of international agreement that can be/have been signed by the executive branch alone, and take effect without Senate ratification. So maybe it depends on just what sort of animal LOST is.

Here’s a link full of lawyerspeak that may or may not be useful to you. Please let me know if you can figure out the answer from it, ‘cause I can’t with certainty.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/12.html


37 posted on 07/16/2012 2:32:43 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

OK, so what IF 0bama enforces this “treaty” without ratification?

Are they going to impeach him?

Not hardly.


38 posted on 07/16/2012 2:40:09 PM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

He was talking about the ATT (small arms treaty)


39 posted on 07/16/2012 2:42:25 PM PDT by Foolsgold (L I B Lacking in Brains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

They might him impeached in the House, but like Clinton, the Senate (controlled by Reid) will save him and with the sympathy of the nation he’ll coast to re-election. Use your brain.


40 posted on 07/16/2012 2:48:31 PM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

“It’s effectively been in effect since 1994..”


It’s been in effect among countries that ratified it; we are not one of those countries.

And, in response to other posters’ concerns, we don’t have to worry about Obama signing it, because Clinton already did that years ago. But a president can sign as many treaties as he wishes and they won’t become the law of the land unless they are ratified by the Senate (with 2/3 of members present required for ratification). (The president can also sign “agreements” that are not formal treaties, but they would require the approval of bpth houses of Congress (by simple majority).) The LOST won’t take effect until it is ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, and it won’t happen now, and certainly won’t happen when the GOP wins back the Senate in November. If Obama wanted that monstrosity ratified, he should have fought for it when the RATs had 60 Senators (so all they needed was 7 RINOs to sign on), but he was too busy pushing Obamacare.


41 posted on 07/16/2012 2:49:53 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Foolsgold

Ok...my error. I’m grateful for the clarification ....stay safe.


42 posted on 07/16/2012 3:04:24 PM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

34 came out against it. Far less than 66 have announced they are supporting it so far.


43 posted on 07/16/2012 3:11:16 PM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"U.S. Chamber of Commerce"?

More like, U.S. Chamber of Communists! Damn, I hate those traitors to America!

44 posted on 07/16/2012 3:12:33 PM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs and most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
He was talking about the ATT treaty that Billary is to sign in NYC in a few days. Dick Morris tried to put a lot of emphasis on this, as it will likely lead to an assault weapon grab, but Sean kept changing the subject back to Bain, etc.

Morris fears that once Billary signs, Dingy Harry will refuse to bring it up for a vote, Bamster won't "veto" it and if....God forbid, he gets re-elected then Katy bar the door on this gun grab. That's how I understood it in the few minutes Dick Morris was able to explain.

45 posted on 07/16/2012 3:13:28 PM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

PRELUDE TO FORT HOOD








BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S HEROES


46 posted on 07/16/2012 3:17:59 PM PDT by devolve (-------------- ------- no servers - no intelligence ----------- ---------------------)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I don’t know that much about LOST, but in researching it I came upon this article. Any comments?:

May 31, 2012 | Wall Street Journal

Time to Join The Law of the Sea Treaty

by Henry A. Kissinger; George P. Shultz (Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow; Chair, Energy Policy Task Force; and member of the Working Group on Economic Policy); Condoleezza Rice (Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow and member of the Task Force on Energy Policy); James Baker III; and Colin Powell

The Convention of the Law of the Sea is again under consideration by the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. finally becomes party to this treaty, it will be a boon for our national security and economic interests. U.S. accession will codify our maritime rights and give us new tools to advance national interests.

The convention’s primary functions are to define maritime zones, preserve freedom of navigation, allocate resource rights, establish the certainty necessary for various businesses that depend on the sea, and protect the marine environment. Flaws in the treaty regarding deep-seabed mining, which prevented President Ronald Reagan from supporting it, were fixed in 1994. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have supported ratification, as do Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama, because it is in the best interest of our nation. Yet the U.S. remains one of the few major countries not party to the convention.

The treaty provides substantial economic benefits to the U.S. It accords coastal states the right to declare an “Exclusive Economic Zone” where they have exclusive rights to explore and exploit, and the responsibility to conserve and manage, living and nonliving resources extending 200 nautical miles seaward from their shoreline. Our nation’s exclusive zone would be larger than that of any country in the world—covering an area greater than the landmass of the lower 48 states. In addition, the zone can be extended beyond 200 nautical miles if certain geological criteria are met; this has significant potential benefits where the U.S.’s continental shelves may be as broad as 600 miles, such as off Alaska, where vast natural resources lie.

As the world’s pre-eminent maritime power with one of the longest coastlines, the U.S. has more than any other country to gain—and to lose—based on how the convention’s terms are interpreted and applied. By becoming party to the treaty, we would strengthen our capacity to influence deliberations and negotiations involving other nations’ attempts to extend their continental boundaries.

The U.S. currently has no input into international deliberations over rights to the Arctic, where rich energy and mineral resources are found more than 200 nautical miles from any country’s shoreline. Russia has placed its flag on the North Pole’s ocean floor. This is a largely symbolic act, but the part of the Arctic Ocean claimed by Russia could hold oil and gas deposits equal to about 20% of the world’s current oil and gas reserves.

As a nonparty to the treaty, the U.S. has limited options for disputing such claims and is stymied from taking full advantage of resources that could be under U.S. jurisdiction. Lack of participation in the convention also jeopardizes economic opportunities associated with commercial deep-sea mining operations in international waters beyond exclusive economic zones—opportunities now pursued by Canadian, Australian and German firms.

Some say it’s good enough to protect our navigational interests through customary international law, and if that approach fails then we can use force or threaten to do so. But customary law is vague and doesn’t provide a strong foundation for critical national security rights. What’s more, the use of force can be risky and costly. Joining the convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis, gaining legal certainty and legitimacy as we operate in the world’s largest international zone.

The continuing delay of U.S. accession to the convention compromises our nation’s authority to exercise our sovereign interest, jeopardizes our national and economic security, and limits our leadership role in international ocean policy.

Our planet’s environment is changing, and there is an increasing need to access resources responsibly. We can expect significant change and resulting economic benefit as the Arctic opens and delivers potentially extraordinary economic benefit to our country. Our coastline, one of the longest in the world, will increase.

These changes and the resulting economic effects are the substance of serious international deliberations of which we are not a part. Time moves on and we are not at the table. This is a serious problem and a significant cost for future generations of Americans.

Maritime claims not only in the Arctic but throughout the world are becoming more contentious. As aggressive maritime behavior increases, the U.S. military has become more, not less, emphatic on the need to become party to this treaty. Current and past military leaders are firmly behind accession, because while nothing in the convention restricts or prohibits our military activity, it is the best process for resolving disputes.

We have been on the sidelines long enough. Now is the time to get on the field and lead.

The authors all have served as secretary of State in Republican administrations.


47 posted on 07/16/2012 3:21:58 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Senators Congress people and this Kenyan are known and proven liars all.
Don’t bet on this one either


48 posted on 07/16/2012 3:25:38 PM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Hey Mitt, F-you too pal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Bravo, Sen DeMint!

Thanks NormsRevenge.


49 posted on 07/16/2012 3:35:33 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
OK, so what IF 0bama enforces this “treaty” without ratification?

Nothing. The government considers it legal for him to do it.

Are they going to impeach him?

The Senate has never uttered a peep about the Vienna Convention.

50 posted on 07/16/2012 3:42:28 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson