Posted on 03/23/2013 4:02:03 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
S.Amdt. 139 to S.Con.Res. 8
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
YEAs 53 NAYs 46 Not Voting 1
Let’s see - a vote to stay with the Constitution. That’s nice.
The downside was a 53-46 vote.
That's way too close for comfort.
It means that 46 of those sorry mother-lovers want to give your sovereignty away to the United Nations. That number may grow. That is the downside.
Downside was not the best word for it. What I’m asking is if the left already has an end run in place around the bill even before it was voted on.
Treasonous bastards!!!!
The left is always plotting and scheming but a 2/3 yes vote on this one is not very likely.
NAYs -—46 All the Usual Ones... Here they are, Tea Party; Let’s fire them..
Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA)Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
This also chilled me to the bone.
46 people who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States are willing to hand over sovereignty.
46 people have made it clear that they are enemies of the United States.
US Senate Votes
Violating Oath of Office is a Federal Crime
(what for and why they voted)
Statement of Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and. (forget anything after and.)
Vote Counts: YEAs 53 NAYs 46
Not Voting 1
Alphabetical by Violating Senator Name
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Cowan (D-MA), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
GUILTY...
Fine, Fire, then lock their A$S up..
Just Saying,
Exactly. When was it ruled upon that a so-called treaty could be approved that usurped our sovereign and Constitutional rights?
This concept of multi-nationalism is being pushed by globalists and multi-national corporations and neocons because national sovereignty is more than an annoyance to those who see national borders as an annoyance and impediment to their agenda.
And what are we doing about it?
(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
It's time to quit watering the Tree of Tyranny. If we won't even do that, we sure won't do anything really strenuous.
“...I) Reid (D-NV) R...”
Attention NRA! This is not a 2A supporter but a wolf is sheep’s clothes. Shout it out LaPierre!
Vienna Convention on Treaties.
signed by US in 1970.
The downside is that this “vote” is meaningless. It is theater, designed to give dems up for reelection some cover against attacks on their anti-2nd-amendment views. this is an amendment to the senate budget proposal that will NEVER be signed into law.
There is a process on changing our constitution.
The rest of the process seems to be missing.
Glad to see my CO participants voting the party line way, especially so soon after Chickenpooper signed the 2nd Amendment rights of Coloradoan patriots away this past Wednesday. I’m really starting to despise that entire side of the aisle.
Yes. A treaty can be legally ratified with 34 votes out of a quorum of 51 Senators.
Try parsing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution without any "wishful thinking" blinders and you'll note that first comma before the phrase, "under the authority of the United States." It's a problem.
We have treaties on the books that wildly exceed the enumerated powers of the Constitution yet not one has ever been thrown out.
Not Voting - 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Was he present and not voting, or “indisposed”? He must be getting close to a hundred...
“es. A treaty can be legally ratified with 34 votes out of a quorum of 51 Senators. “
It won’t though. It will take 67 votes and they do not exist.
I see the CT delegation is doing exactly as I expected.
Well said. 46 Dems dumb enough to go on record and volunteering themselves to be arrested for treason.
He was watching The Lawrence Welk Show.
I understand it takes two-thirds present vote, but can they sign a treaty that nullifies any of the Bill of Rights?
Probably one he was a guest on.
>”Treasonous bastards!!!!”<
Anyone recall the last time we Hung, or is it Hanged, Treasonous Bastards?
Any Republican candidate (or PAC or issue advocate) can now run an honest TV ad that shows incontrovertible PROOF that his rat opponent (any of those listed) does not support the US Constitution. Let’s see how many have the guts to do so.
I take it you think a master of parliamentary procedure like Harry Reid can't figure out how to set up a vote against a GOP determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Worse, according to international law the US has been respecting for over forty years, the government is committed to the terms of the treaty from the moment of the signature of any officer, including Kerry.
“I take it you think a master of parliamentary procedure like Harry Reid can’t figure out how to set up a vote against a GOP determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”
Yeh OK and the Russians are getting ready to invade NYC :-)
“I understand it takes two-thirds present vote, but can they sign a treaty that nullifies any of the Bill of Rights?”
No they cannot. No treaty trumps the Constitution.
That’s what I thought. I’m sure the asshats will try anyway though.
Thank you Pollyanna.
I can cite a treaty that committed the entire United States economy and all of its lands to the potential for government control. It was ratified without record of a committee vote, or quorum by voice vote. The cover letter from the Secretary of State lied about its content. Don't believe it?
Of course, Hamilton lied about the treaty power in The Federalist #75, so in duplicity such affairs is hardly something new.
Don't believe it? Try me, but if you do, I'll expect a public retraction.
Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
Justia.com
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html
Excerpt:
“As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.”
TREATIES DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/Treaties.htm
Treaties
Curtis W. Caine, MD
Hacienda Publishing
[Excerpt:]
Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)
In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.
Thank you for the info and links.
Bookmark
From US Dept. of State website:
Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
No. The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.
Found here:
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm
They don't supersede it, either.
Like the difference between "cession" and "session".
</net nanny>
Treaty ratification requires a 2/3 present vote. This 46 vote is 21 short of the full Senate.
Small comfort. Better keep arming up. Five more Senators are bound to be Blue in the next election.
The 46 Traitors:
NAYs -—46
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
“Supercede?” Some say that it goes back nearly 400 years as a misspelling and has become synonymous. I see “superceden” in Scot Middle English. I think I’ll let Jack McLamb (writer for the Family Guardian) slide on that one. Maybe he’s of more northern heritage than Latin-ish. —sometimes editor of net nannies.
[Little humor and mischief there. Thanks for the tip. ;-) ]
You’re welcome. Firearms and ammunition are good tools, but maybe we should consider the old volume manufacturing and sales paradigm (that is, make more of the stuff to meet even future demand). There are many other useful things needed in small, widespread production, too, in my opinion: energy, other important tools, small scale food production in various climates, all).
The voting rules need to be changed to prevent both senators and congressmen from voting present, or abstaining from voting. Either yes or no, no in-between.
The dims voting for this were afraid of losing out to their voters who would hang them for getting rid of guns. Otherwise, they would have voted to support the UN. The dims own the senate. The fear factor of losing an election is the only reason these people supported it. Nothing else.
they’re on record now, and the GOP will not let this go.
Who am I kidding, course they will the bunch of infiltrators who have a the letter R at the end of their name, the elitist estbalishment will do nothing because their own power nadmoney is more important or because they;re cowards who always run away when there is a fight with the left, media,
AMEN BROTHER...!!
AMEN BROTHER...!!
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.