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 ...
Only 34? Or are there more? I don’t like it being that close.
B U M P
I hear, ya. a pox on the rest,, a bunch of boneheads. what do ya expect from rinos?
So what happens if/when Obama signs this treaty and then enforces it without Senate approval?
Those GOP voting “for” or merely “absent” are????
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.
Shouldn’t there be at least 49 Senators in opposition?
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
Only 34 ???
My first thought also
Once again, “no difference between the two parties,” right? Riiiiight. How many Dems opposed this monstrosity?
>> 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.
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.
Praise the LORD!
Or if someone ‘Roberts’ it at the last minute.
You mean Harry Reid can’t “deem” it ratified?
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?
>> Once again, “no difference between the two parties,” right?
You’re absolutely right, there is a difference.
Traitorous bastards, all of them. Every one of these clucks should be run out of town on a rail.
Wow! Great news!
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Sooooooo, 66 Senators are more than willing to give away our SOVERNITY!!!
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.
Assuming a quorum of 51, treaty ratification only requires 34 Senators present.
BTW, this is a flat out lie, disinformation at its finest.
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.
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 ?
There may be more—you’d hope—but 34 is what we need and we got it.
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!
>> 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
OK, so what IF 0bama enforces this “treaty” without ratification?
Are they going to impeach him?
Not hardly.
He was talking about the ATT (small arms treaty)
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.
“It’s effectively been in effect since 1994..”
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.
Ok...my error. I’m grateful for the clarification ....stay safe.
34 came out against it. Far less than 66 have announced they are supporting it so far.
More like, U.S. Chamber of Communists! Damn, I hate those traitors to America!
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.
PRELUDE TO FORT HOOD
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S HEROES |
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.
Senators Congress people and this Kenyan are known and proven liars all.
Don’t bet on this one either
Bravo, Sen DeMint!
Thanks NormsRevenge.
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.
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.
