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

Skip to comments.

House resolution calls on Obama to reject UN arms trade treaty
THE HILL ^ | November 20, 2012 | Pete Kasperowicz

Posted on 11/20/2012 2:39:29 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER

Several dozen members of the House have introduced a resolution that calls on President Obama not to sign the United Nations's Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). It also demands that if Obama does sign it, the government should not spend any time or money on implementation until the Senate approves it.

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


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: arms; banglist; treaty; un

1 posted on 11/20/2012 2:39:42 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
Obama’s plan to circumvent the Constitution of the United States is an Impeachable Offense. It will give the UN, Useless Nations, the right to control our right to possess arms. The mere suggestion of this makes my blood boil.

The !~!@#$^ bastard swore to defend our constitution, not dilute it.

2 posted on 11/20/2012 2:51:28 PM PST by BatGuano (You don't think I'd go into combat with loose change in my pocket, do ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Treaties must be ratified. The President cannot enter into any treaty all by his dictatorial little self.


3 posted on 11/20/2012 2:53:54 PM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
Is there some hope that the Senate won't rubber stamp and approve it? Obama seems to ignore any resolutions or letters from the republicans in congress, so I believe the ‘strongly worded’ resolution is a waste of time, but is there enough sane democrats left in the Senate to link up with the minority republicans any kill the bill?
4 posted on 11/20/2012 2:54:55 PM PST by 2010Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
...if Obama does sign it, the government should not spend any time or money on implementation until even if the Senate approves it.
The House decides the money right?

They should NOT allow any money for this. Make the dem Senate override that decision.

5 posted on 11/20/2012 3:01:47 PM PST by Syncro (The Tea Party is Dead-->MSM/Dems/GOP-e -- LONG LIVE THE TEA PARTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Reject it? Hell, he probably WROTE it!


6 posted on 11/20/2012 3:05:07 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Why is the government more concerned about protecting a microbe on Mars than an unborn baby here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2010Freeper

I’ve heard that there is some senate resistance, don’t know how much.


7 posted on 11/20/2012 3:05:33 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

But he CAN order that all government agencies under his control, including the ATF, act as though it were the law of the land.


8 posted on 11/20/2012 3:07:27 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Why is the government more concerned about protecting a microbe on Mars than an unborn baby here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Remember!?!?!?! This is mostly the same house and senate members that passed the NDAA (lock em up by command of the president without charge, without access to counsel and indefinitely). Don’t worry, just sit back and accept the fact there is no longer a Constitution so accept that the majority of supposedly elected traitors in DC will WITHOUT A DOUBT allow the US to adopt this UN treaty. Most politicians denigrate the Tea Party folks because they are scared to death of us thus they must disarm us. Once this treaty is passed we can all respond in an appropriate fashion as the obozo, Holder, Hitlery and it, it goes by Janet Nipolitano, attempt to confiscate our firearms.


9 posted on 11/20/2012 3:27:17 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Adopting it and enforcing it are to different issues.

This is not Britain or Australia.


10 posted on 11/20/2012 3:36:01 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER


11 posted on 11/20/2012 4:02:21 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Yeah but how many Americans (and dogs) will have to be killed by local SWAT teams, Sheriffs, police, ATF, FBI, before the 0bamamedia covers it? Were there any gun confiscations during Hurricane Sandy? The 0bamamedia are NOT reporting ANYTHING which would incite law-abiding Americans to revolt. Besides voter fraud, this enabled 0bama’s re-election; Benghazi is one example.


12 posted on 11/20/2012 4:05:05 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
By the way, just another tooth in the gear of:
AGENDA 21
13 posted on 11/20/2012 4:10:25 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Freepers!
All in favor of surrendering your right to bear arms
Raise Both.
All in favor of Free Republic, click here.
or mail checks to:

Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794



14 posted on 11/20/2012 4:12:57 PM PST by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

A government that would try to implement this treaty in America would prove beyond all doubt that they mean to invoke an insurrection, with the intent to establish a dictatorship after squashing it.


15 posted on 11/20/2012 4:23:02 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

But that would mean he would have to ignore the rule of law and our founding documents…

Oh, we’re talking about Benghazi Barack…. Never mind..


16 posted on 11/20/2012 4:25:15 PM PST by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
Treaties must be ratified. The President cannot enter into any treaty all by his dictatorial little self.

Then why pray tell did George Bush bother to "unsign" the International Criminal Court Treaty? Hmmm???

Ever since the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties went into force, a signature is enough grounds for the government to begin to enforce it. Even though the Senate rejected it, it has been treated by the government as "customary international law."

Oh, and if you still feel comfy in that ignorance, realize this: Per Article II Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, it only takes 34 Senators to ratify a treaty, "two thirds of the Senators present" presuming a quorum of 51. You can learn more about how that happened here.

17 posted on 11/20/2012 4:55:06 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BatGuano; GingisK; Blood of Tyrants; Venturer; dagogo redux; Voice of Reason1; Carry_Okie
3. Treaties must be ratified. The President cannot enter into any treaty all by his dictatorial little self.

8. But he CAN order that all government agencies under his control, including the ATF, act as though it were the law of the land.

10. Adopting it and enforcing it are to different issues. ...

15. A government that would try to implement this treaty in America would prove beyond all doubt that they mean to invoke an insurrection, with the intent to establish a dictatorship after squashing it.

16. But that would mean he would have to ignore the rule of law and our founding documents …

17. ... Ever since the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties went into force, a signature is enough grounds for the government to begin to enforce it. Even though the Senate rejected it, it has been treated by the government as "customary international law." ...

Most of us seem to be on the same page and see that a 2/3rd Senate ratification barrier will not be an impediment for BHO. He has shown his disdain for the Constitution and conservatives. His AG, Eric Holder, sure hasn't let a House resolution of contempt because of "Fast & Furious" slow him down. Didn't Clinton sign the Kyoto Accord? Other Freepers have pointed out that once the chief executive (POTUS) signs off on the UN bill, the bill remains in stasis just waiting for that future time when there is a 2/3 Senate majority. Aren't those U.S. gun stores along the Mexican border still under a DoJ restriction of 1 firearm sale per person per day?

18 posted on 11/20/2012 5:13:28 PM PST by MacNaughton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

reject it? good luck with that

it’s one of his many goals for the next 4 yrs

wait until he gets a breathless call with Putin....


19 posted on 11/20/2012 5:55:59 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MacNaughton
Most of us seem to be on the same page and see that a 2/3rd Senate ratification barrier will not be an impediment for BHO.

It's not 2/3 of the Senate; it's 2/3 of SENATORS PRESENT, IOW as few as 34.

Other Freepers have pointed out that once the chief executive (POTUS) signs off on the UN bill, the bill remains in stasis just waiting for that future time when there is a 2/3 Senate majority.

Not true. Read the linked article above.

20 posted on 11/20/2012 6:04:11 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

I think the House members are just sending a shot over Barry’s bow. There are not 67 votes in the Senate for this POS. If politicians know how to do one thing it is stick thdeir finger in the wind. There is no desire for gun control in this country. It would kick off CWII.


21 posted on 11/20/2012 6:59:51 PM PST 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: Carry_Okie

Good job. I was going to reply and then saw your reply. This deserves its own thread. FReepers need to know and then they need to tell the people.


22 posted on 11/20/2012 7:48:15 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD; philman_36
Good job. I was going to reply and then saw your reply.

Well welcome aboard! Philman_36 and I have been trying to get FReepers to understand the threat of treaties for over a decade. I'm getting damned tired of dealing with "it takes 67 Senators" over and over.

23 posted on 11/20/2012 8:20:11 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
But he CAN order that all government agencies under his control, including the ATF, act as though it were the law of the land.

Maybe that would be the "line drawn in the sand".

24 posted on 11/20/2012 8:31:51 PM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
The President cannot enter into any treaty all by his dictatorial little self.

Just who do you think will stop him? I have little reason to trust the Senate and the house has no real say other than budget, and they have shown their true self by letting the administration operate without a budget for four years.

We have no clue where the money is going or how much.

25 posted on 11/21/2012 1:56:03 AM PST by itsahoot (Any enemy, that is allowed to have a King's X line, is undefeatable. (USS Taluga AO-62))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I'm getting damned tired of dealing with "it takes 67 Senators" over and over.

Haven't we had some questionable Amendment ratifications as well?

26 posted on 11/21/2012 2:10:44 AM PST by itsahoot (Any enemy, that is allowed to have a King's X line, is undefeatable. (USS Taluga AO-62))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: drypowder

No one should be shocked by this. It has always been Obama’s plan.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61942.html

Barack Obama’s gun control is ‘under the radar’

For an administration with a secretive itch for gun control, the situation is ideal. They can let the United Nations do the dirty work of drafting onerous new restrictions on civilian firearms, then package them inside a treaty with legitimate measures to control true military armaments.

The U.N. has scheduled the treaty to be finished in July of next year — just in time to go to the Obama White House for ratification.

That’s “under the radar” for you.

But one risk of operating under the radar is that you can’t see the moves of your opponents. This is not the first U.N. gun-control rodeo for my friends at the National Rifle Association. They know treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Thirty-four senators would have to vote no to block the treaty.

While the rest of Washington was fixated on the debt ceiling debate, the NRA quietly marshaled opposition to the treaty among pro-gun senators.

Fifty-eight senators have now called out the president on his plan. Led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats have written two strong letters —one from members of each party — to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. All the senators have vowed to oppose any treaty that restricts civilian firearm ownership.

What’s ironic is that the United States already has the world’s pre-eminent system for regulation of true military arms sales. If the rest of the world merely adopted the U.S. regulatory regime, there would be no need for an Arms Trade Treaty.

Except from the article.


27 posted on 11/21/2012 4:58:57 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012; itsahoot
Your assessment of Obama is correct. However...

They (the NRA - CO) know treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Thirty-four senators would have to vote no to block the treaty.

I'll bet you a $1000 donation to FReerepublic that this is dead wrong. You have no idea how dangerous promulgating this error really is, at which you went on about it at unreasonable length. Nor did you even read the thread where that fact is explained before offering your inestimable opinion.

Either that or you can go and read what Article II Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution actually says. Given the language of that clause, a treaty can be ratified legally by as few as 34 Senators and (given the precedent of what constitutes a filibuster) conceivably as few as TWO (2) . If you want to understand how it got that way read this.

Harry Reid is a master of underhanded procedure. He knows how to get this treaty to the floor without a committee vote. He may know how to get it to a vote without a filibuster. And there you sit, confident in your comfort, because the NRA has your back. Oh, and I'm sure the NRA explained all of that to you, right?

One last thing, despite your blandishments about the United States' wonderful system for tracking military weapons sales, how does that explain Fast & Furious? Iran Contra?? Arms sales to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria???

This treaty would end the practice of arming oppressed peoples to take down their tyrannical governments. How do you think we armed the resistance to fascism in Europe? How the hell do you think the colonists of this country got their weapons???? Is that what you want?

28 posted on 11/21/2012 8:34:56 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I guess there will be a lot of sleepless Republican Senators awaiting a quorum call to vote.


29 posted on 11/21/2012 10:48:48 AM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin
I know of at least one instance in which a treaty was ratified without a quorum (if you click the link I provided above, you'll see that it was a lulu). In the past, I have suggested a 24-7 watch on the Senate chambers with designated Senators maintaining an "on-call list."

Are you listening Jim DeMint?

30 posted on 11/21/2012 10:55:34 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Carry I don't think I disagreed with anything you said. I know about the Treaty Trap, maybe because I read your treatise several years back.

There is a similar lack of understanding of the Power Congress has to pass laws that the Supreme Court has no authority to review.

Of course we now have no need for Congress at all since legislation is regularly skirted with EOs.

31 posted on 11/21/2012 12:02:36 PM PST by itsahoot (Any enemy, that is allowed to have a King's X line, is undefeatable. (USS Taluga AO-62))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Carry I don't think I disagreed with anything you said.

You didn't, and you didn't say anything incorrect. It was a sort of cc to let you know why I get so blasted tired of this stupidity. It was a cry for help to one whom I know is capable of rendering aid. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Of course we now have no need for Congress at all since legislation is regularly skirted with EOs.

Or UN secretariats. Sigh.

32 posted on 11/21/2012 12:08:37 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

33 posted on 12/04/2012 5:52:56 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

34 posted on 12/04/2012 5:53:10 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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