Obama To Sign International Gun Control Treaty On June 3rd

breitbart.com ^

[Sub-Driver]

Obama To Sign International Gun Control Treaty On June 3rd

On June 3, President Barack Obama will sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

The ATT passed in the U.N. General Assembly by a vote of 153-4 on April 2.

This treaty is ostensibly aimed at putting an end to gun trafficking across international boundaries, and both Breitbart News and the NRA have argued that it will eventually require an international gun registry in order to be enforceable.

The ATT also provides the executive branch of our government with broad powers for controlling which guns do and don't come into the country, and includes ambiguous language that a gun-control-friendly administration can use to its advantage.

Even though Obama will sign this treaty, it is not enforceable in the U.S. until the Senate ratifies it by a two-thirds majority.

For the time being, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has pushed through an amendment opposing the treaty.

[Sub-Driver]

Sign a treaty without it being ratified? Who does he think he is?

[ryan71]

“....gun trafficking across international boundaries.....”

How ironic is that? Maybe the UN wrote this in response to HIS actions?

[tanknetter]

I think with treaties that’s pretty much standard. The President (or designated official) signs, then it goes to the Senate for ratification.

[FlingWingFlyer]

One thing is obvious. Barry Soetoro didn’t learn a Fluken thing in college. He doesn’t even know how the government is supposed to work. What a moron.

[Mouton]

Maybe they can put a resignation letter in front of him to sign and when he does say sorry, bye.

[demshateGod]

I think he learned exactly what he was taught.

[KarlInOhio]

Even though Obama will sign this treaty, it is not enforceable in the U.S. until the Senate ratifies it by a two-thirds majority.

Then get it in front of the Senate, vote it down and be done with it. I'm getting tired of the number of treaties that end up in ratification limbo just waiting for the time the Republicans have their backs turned to get ratified.

I've heard someone arguing that according to the current state of international "law" that a signed but not yet ratified treaty is treated as being in effect... especially if the administration likes it. I don't know if the person arguing that was an expert or a whackjob (or both).

[ArrogantBustard]

Sign a treaty without it being ratified? Who does he think he is?

He thinks he's the President of the United States.

One could argue that he's wrong ... but currently holds (or at least usurps) that office.

Presidents sign treaties, or decline to sign them. Then the Senate ratifies treaties, or refuses to ratify them. In that order. The Senate can take no action until the President has first taken action.

Barry Benghazi Soetoro 0dinga Scumbag 0bama is wrong to sign this treaty ... and this treaty may well be unconstitutional. But that's a different discussion.

[Wings-n-Wind]

The ATT also provides the executive branch of our government with broad powers for controlling which guns do and don't come into the country, and includes ambiguous language that a gun-control-friendly administration can use to its advantage.

******************

Not surprised they would try it....
... I s'pect this will be slapped down quite hard...

Perhaps posturing for the 114th Congress...??
Expecting to gain the seats in 2014 adopt this...??

******************

Sign a treaty without it being ratified? Who does he think he is?

******************

He thinks he is the king...
******************

*******************

IMO....big mistake in America
We have dealt with kings and Pharoah-wannabe's before...

There's nothing new under the sun...

Have a good day SD

[Blood of Tyrants]

Presidents sign treaties before they are ratified all the time. Nothing new. While it is not enforceable through law, Obama can get his alphabet agencies to block imports and to write new rules about guns.

[KeyLargo]

BREAKING: CA Senate Votes to Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles With Detachable Magazines

Posted on May 29, 2013 by Robert Farago

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/05/robert-farago/breaking-ca-senate-votes-to-ban-all-semi-automatic-rifles-with-detachable-magazines/

[Psalm 73]

Pass whatever they want - not complyin’ now - won’t comply later, either....

[Carry_Okie]

Sign a treaty without it being ratified? Who does he think he is?

Uh, that's how it's done, and don't think it's meaningless without ratification.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

A future Republican presidential candidate should make it clear that when elected he will abrogate this treaty signature.

This should be part of a “presidential powers reform package”, to strip the presidency by law of unconstitutional powers gradually accumulated over 200 years, along with the restoration of important laws that have been ignored.

1) An end to Presidential Signing Statements; Czars; non-recess Recess appointments; the abuse of Executive Privilege; state land grabs via Presidential Proclamations, along with the return of most state lands taken this way; and a prohibition to foreign agreements and modifications to existing treaties, currently called “below treaty level”, that are not approved by the senate.

2) Restoration of the War Powers Act; the Posse Comitatus Act; and very precise restoration of Civil Rights that have been eroded by judicial decision and precedent, a “Civil Rights Restoration Act”, that narrows interpretation to the exact text of the constitution.

3) A big one, a limitation on the use of “accessory clauses” in the constitution that have been nonsensically abused by the president and congress, such as the “General Welfare” clause, the “Interstate Commerce” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause, and the “Supremacy” clause.

[Cheerio]

[Carry_Okie]

Even though Obama will sign this treaty, it is not enforceable in the U.S. until the Senate ratifies it by a two-thirds majority.

Not true. By Zero's signature, the US has agreed not to contravene the treaty until ratification pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which the United States never ratified. The Department of State considers it "customary international law."

As to the two-thirds of the Senate, the Constitution actually specifies "two thirds of the Senators present," which means it can be as few as 34 Senators (assuming a minimum quorum.

For background on how we got to this point, read this.

[DTogo]

Back to the Future: April 19th, 1775.

[Biggirl]

Look for folks not to comply.

[RedMDer]

Freepathon day 60

Please Contribute Today!
Woo Woo!!
Less than $4.4k to Go!
We can do this!!
FReepers ROCK!!

[servantboy777]

He can sign it a hundred times. On top, bottom, flip over and sign it yet again, but w/o ratification...it’s means squat.