Posted on 09/25/2013 9:05:44 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The United States, the world’s largest arms dealer, has joined more than 90 other nations in signing a treaty that regulates global arms trading, but there is strong resistance in the Senate, which must ratify it.
Secretary of State John Kerry, who signed the Arms Trade Treaty on Wednesday, said it was a “significant step” in keeping the world safe and preventing terrorists and others from obtaining conventional weapons. …
Addressing U.S. critics of the treaty, the former senator said fears that it would undermine Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms are not grounded in reality.
For one, the treaty does not regulate domestic weapons sales. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Hmmm... out of your seven points, I’d say that #1 thru #5 are happening concurrently, even now.
#6 is already beginning to boil, and has been marginally successful.
A few of us are prepping for #7...
My thouyghts exactly. They don’t have mine yet. or 80 million others and growing...
#6 is already beginning to boil, and has been marginally successful.
A few of us are prepping for #7...
That’s how I intended it to read Old Sarge. Prepping for #7 is where we are at.
thoughts
What if the horse trade is delays on Obama care for the treaty?
Say, don't I remember you saying you lost those in a freak boat accident?
Scary is that we have quite a few Liberal Communist Globalist GOP Senators who will vote for this UN gun grab...this is not a lock that this treaty is not passed
Until such time as it is ratified in the Senate, if ever, the US has done nothing of the kind.
That reminds me of the Swift Boat Veterans, and aside from one of them speaking up when Kerry was being nominated for SecState, they have been just too quiet.
It used to be the senate ratified treaties. Of course it also used to be that when a law was passed all aspects of that law was enforced. And it used to be we followed the constitution.
I believe they need 2/3 vote of the Senate to ratify treaties.
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...” Art2 Sec2
So even trying to implement that I do not think will pass the Senate and definitely NOT the house.
I do not believe, or at least I hope, this will not be attempted by some executive order...even those have to have some sort of enabling legislation. Otherwise he could just do what he wanted, the heck with the constitution,
Hey....wait a minute....
“I believe they need 2/3 vote of the Senate to ratify treaties.”
They only need 2/3rds of those present and quorum of the Senate is 51, meaning they only need 34 to pass it. That’s it. Those are the numbers. They don’t even have to hold the quorum in the Senate chambers. They can meet privately wherever they desire.
The House is not involved with treaties in any way.
I'll keep it in the black, until such time as I may need to keep it in the BLUE (helmet, beret, etc.).
Molon Labe.
Lexington & Concord II
And what if our patriots did not receive arms from France, for example? I carry a replica Charleville flintlock as did some of my ancestors.
Co-incidentally, will this prevent Øbama from arming AlQuaeda In Syria at the same time he is trying to disarm America?
I call on the House to Impeach Kerry for violating his oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution when he signed that document.
International Law DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION.
“International Law DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION.”
You can keep shouting that but when the government no longer gives a shit what you think...well, you had best have Plan B ready.
I agree, and the most effective way I can object, is to point out what the reality will be, whether we buy in or not (Senate wise).
Our citizens need to sit up and smell the stench. Unless they react, we’re in serious trouble here.
I pointed out in a later post that Washington, D. C., and Chicago already have anti-gun laws. California has a slew of them. Are those Constitutional? Of course not.
Now, do you think there will be more or fewer municipalities with anti-gun laws after the U. N. ratifies it’s anti-gun treaty?
You know what the answer is. So do I. Does the fact that I understand this mean that I think U. N. law should trump the U. S. Constitution? NO.
It’s simply a grim reality. Follow the Kyoto trail to see how international law is implemented doing a bypass of Washington, D. C. And if you want to claim that’s different, it is. Now, what’s your explanation for W., D.C., Chicago, and California?
You can see the handwriting as well as I can. And no, I don’t think you’re advocating the U.N. superseding our own Constitution at all. It still stands to be a reality we’ll have to deal with, like it or not.
So I’m being as frank about it as I can, right now!
I will take some comfort in the recent state and Federal Supreme Court decisions, Illinois for one example, Colorado the other. But the majorities are precarious, no doubt.
I wonder if signing this now is a way to try and divert the Conservative base onto another hot button issue, taking some heat off Øbamacare. Looks like a two front war, boys and girls.
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.