[RedMonqey]

Obama acan sign any thing he wishes but it’s worthless without the Senate’s consent.

[lentulusgracchus]

Obama acan sign any thing he wishes but it’s worthless without the Senate’s consent.

That's incorrect. There is a certain binding legality on a signed treaty regardless of its ratification, that constrains the actions of the signing executive authority -- and future congressional legislation.

That is why Bill Clinton made a cottage industry of signing left-wing U.N. bullcrap "treaties" and "conventions" that would never see the light of day in the Senate. He did it to impede the U.S. and show "good faith" like a good liberal dipshit.

The next real Republican president needs to submit all these unratified treaties and conventions to the Senate for ratification. The Senate then needs to stomp on them, hard, and the president then needs to denounce and abrogate the treaty -- then the U.S. will be completely free of said treaties.

Including, if it comes down to it, the U.N. Treaty.

Of course, R-Money, the current RiNO/Yacht Club/NWO candidate, wouldn't touch any of those NWO holy grails -- hell, he would probably sign some more of 'em if Bribeme Annan and Bunko Moon pushed them Mitty's way.

[Wurlitzer]

“Obama acan sign any thing he wishes but it’s worthless without the Senate’s consent.”

---

Thanks to an ignorant public (due to decades of union infested public schools), a willing accomplice in the MSM, presidents since Woodrow Wilson have been violating the constitution and usurping much of the Senate’s power via Executive Orders.

The dark lord has no problem running this country like a banana republic dictatorship with one Executive order after another. The vast majority of these EOs have noting to due with the Executive branch are all most exclusively the privy of the Congress. But who cares? The man can read a mean teleprompter.

[W. W. SMITH]

it’s worthless without the Senate’s consent.

It’s called an executive order and a Senate that has no testicles will cut our throats.