DeMint: Law of the Sea Treaty now dead

The Washington Tines ^ | July 16, 2012 | By Kristina Wong and Sean Lengell

[yoe]

The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty now has 34 senators opposed to it and thus lacks the Senate votes needed for U.S. ratification, a key opponent of the treaty announced Monday.

But the treaty’s main Senate proponent denies the treaty is sunk, saying plenty of time still exists to win support before a planned late-year vote.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, which entered into force in 1994 and has been signed and ratified by 162 countries, establishes international laws governing the maritime rights of countries. The treaty has been signed but not ratified by the U.S., which would require two-thirds approval of the Senate.

Critics of the treaty argue that it would subject U.S. sovereignty to an international body, require American businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation and subject the U.S. to unwieldy environmental regulations as defined.

[Parmenio]

There are indications that Romney opposes LOST:

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/16/law-of-the-sea-treaty-is-dead/

[Wings-n-Wind]

Defeating this STUPID dilution of American sovereignty is a WIN1 WIN! WIN!

After emailing Sen. Isakson and getting a tepid canned response....
... I was pleased to see that he signed onto Demint's letter.

John "Lurch" Kerry hates America--
....just like someone else we are about to send back to Chicago!

[montag813]

DeMint’s bluster is a mistake. LOST is NOT dead, because Kerry wasn’t planning a vote until the LAME DUCK session anyway. And when the election is done, ANYTHING GOES. They only need ONE VOTE. This is NOT over, and it is foolish to relax.

[ak267]

Okay, let’s do the math shall we?

If you have at least 34 confirmed “no” votes who SHOW UP and vote “no”, this sucker goes down....PERIOD.....no matter what the quorum call is.

The math can’t be debated.

Currently, the GOP has 35 dedicated senators who have pledged to show up and vote “no”. Because of this, the treaty can’t pass no matter how many senators show up.

(1) To reach quorum, you’ll need at least 51 senators

(2) Currently, the GOP has 35 dedicated “no” votes (According to Senator Inhofe more GOP senators...not on the current 35 name list...will also vote “no” if this treaty comes to a floor vote)

(3) 2/3 of attending senators (if quorum is made) are needed to pass a treaty.

Lets say you have 90 Senators who show up. You will then need 60 votes to pass the treaty. If we have 35 committed “no” votes who show up and vote “no” the best the Democrats will get is 55 votes. 55 is not 2/3 of 90....5 votes short

Lets say you have 75 senators who show up. You will then need 50 votes to pass the treaty. If you have 35 committed “no” votes who show up and vote “no”, the best the Democrats will get is 40 votes. 40 is not 2/3 of 75.....10 votes short

Lets say you have 60 senators who show up. You will then need 40 votes to pass the treaty. If you have 35 committed “no” votes who show up and vote “no”, the best the Democrats will have is 25 votes. 25 is not 2/3 of 40.....15 votes short

Moral of the story: The 35 dedicated “no” votes will have to show up, quorum is declared, they vote “no”, and it’s over.

If the Democrats table the bill, it’s essentially over until 2013 but the odds will only get worse as the GOP is projected to take the Senate with a new batch of conservative Freshman.

If not enough people show up for quorum (most likely Democrats), no vote will be taken. Egg is on the Democrat’s faces and unless they try trickery (and the GOP will eye them like a hawk for shenanigans) it’s over until next year (see above paragraph for future LOST prospects). It also means the Democrats realize that LOST is a lost cause and don’t want to go on the record (those supporting LOST, and running for reelection in 2014, don’t want this embarrassment to linger). Quite frankly, if enough Democrats decide to be a no-show they’ll call off the vote rather than risk the embarrassment.

Senator Manchin (WV) MUST be having second thoughts about this.

Quite frankly, on the day of the vote, if you see Democratic senators AWOL on the quorum call, you’ll know that LOST is DOA.

Simple as that.

[goodnesswins]

That THIS so called “treaty” even made it to Congress is a testament to how many of our elected “officials” don’t even understand or honor the CONSTITUTION.

[WKUHilltopper]

“DeMint: Law of the Sea Treaty now dead”

Yeah? I heard the same thing about Obamacare too—and it magically got passed.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

More like Godzilla.
Nuke him and he keeps on coming...

[EternalVigilance]

May well have passed under a Romney regime.

Folks might want to ponder that...

[ak267]

You’ll need to watch this video on Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma (July 16th, 2012). The whip count against LOST is 35 and Inhofe has informed the Senate that if Kerry brings this to a floor vote, more “no” votes will be forthcoming.

Inhofe knew that a lame duck strategy was on the table. C’mon, the guy has been to the DC rodeo a few times....cut him some slack.

What Inhofe is doing is called “setting a marker”. He’s telling Kerry (and to anyone else thinking of voting for this...especially those who are up for reelection in 2012/2014) that LOST is DOA. Anyone foolish enough to support LOST, and push for a floor vote, will go on the record supporting a crappy treaty.

Once LOST is explained to the public (which is happening now via the internet/radio/word of mouth), it will become even more toxic.

In closing, you typically don’t request a floor vote unless you either (1) have the votes, (2) don’t have the votes yet wish to make a statement or (3) don’t have the votes yet want to put people on the record. Will Kerry’s coalition be willing to go on the record now? Are they willing to go down with the ship? To those in key swing states (Manchin-WV, Graham-SC) they might be too scarred to pull that lever no matter how discrete their tacit support.

[ak267]

Does that explain Portman and Ayotte? Hmmmmmm.

[ak267]

Here ya go...it’s interesting to hear the master give the plain truth!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPS-VsEUZ08&feature=player_embedded

[rlmorel]

This is NOT dead, and I wish they would STOP saying so.

There has been no vote. The Liberals know what the vote count is, and they know they won't succeed, so Reid is holding off a vote on it.

So, it is just sitting on the sidelines, waiting for "someone" to bring it to a vote.

If the liberals are in charge and know they have the votes, they will bring it up and have it voted up or down.

If conservatives ever take charge, and they know they have the votes to defeat it, once and for all, they WILL (should) bring it to a vote.

Otherwise, it brings to mind the quote from Mammy in "Gone With The Wind":

"...You know what trouble Ah's talkin' about. I'm talkin' about Mistuh Ashley Wilkes. He'll be comin' to Atlanta when he get his leave -- and you sittin' there waitin' fo' him -- jes' like a spider..."

[KarlInOhio]

If you have at least 34 confirmed “no” votes who SHOW UP and vote “no”, this sucker goes down....PERIOD.....no matter what the quorum call is.

You need to captialize, bold and increase the font of that initial "If". What happens if Romney picks a senator as a VP candidate? He'll be largely out for the rest of the campaign. Have another senator stuck in traffic and then the Dems can pass it. I don't know how long it takes for Harry Reid to count noses and then sprint the treaty to the Senate floor for a quick vote. Can the anti-LOST Republicans delay it by an hour, a day or a week to have their full number? Or can Reid, McCain and the like use parliamentary rules to have a quick vote? I really don't know. I would feel a lot better if 40 Republicans publicly stated their intent to vote against ratification. Being right on the razor's edge just begs for Dem dirty tricks.

[ak267]

Oh true on some accounts...they won’t quit on this, granted, it’s in their blood. They are creatures of habit after all :)

But you forget one key thing. This might be “make or break” for LOST for quite some time. If the November elections give the GOP the majority in the Senate (especially with a fresh batch of conservative senators: Fischer, Mourdock, Cruz, Rehberg, etc.) then this treaty has a hard time getting out of committee much less a cloture vote or even a final floor vote.

Is Senator Graham (next election in 2014) willing to vote “yes” on this? What about Senator Manchin (coal producing West Virginia)? If the whip count against LOST is solid then any yes vote turns toxic. No one wants to be left dangling in the wind.

[ak267]

Methinks you’re getting a little too paranoid about this.

There are protocols on voting in the senate, cloture vote standards, debates, parliamentary procedures, delaying tactics and so forth. Inhofe has indicated there will be more “no” votes if this treaty comes to the floor. Typically, in down times or lame duck sessions, both parties post “parliamentary sentries” to make sure that neither side tries any shenanigans.

Just keep up the pressure on your senators.

At the 11:10 mark....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPS-VsEUZ08&feature=player_embedded

[Joe Boucher]

Like the uber rich denise Rich, the Heintz family may just find it necessary to renounce their Americn Citizenship after they make the bundle Juan Kerry and teraza may take home from this or what ever of his schemes.

[etcb]

Well said. Thank you.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Why not require permission before you can get in the bath-tub sir? Don't you want to be safe there too?

That is covered by Obamacare.

[DoughtyOne]

Why not require permission before you can get in the bath-tub sir? Don't you want to be safe there too?

That is covered by Obamacare.

Yes that's true.

Still, you don't have to get permission to put your foot in the water with Obamacare.

You don't have to use pre-approved soap.

You don't have to get permission to use a wash-cloth, or make sure you use just the right wash cloth.

If you want to play with your rubber duck, Russia, China, or Iran can't veto it.

If you should discover some young thing in there with you, neither of you have to pay the U. N. a discovery tax.

If there's any clean-up required, it's your business and not some international inspector's.

And..., you don't have to pay a use tax simply because you found something of value in there, and tapped it.

[itsahoot]

One vote buffer, that makes me feel really good. That means there are 15 idiots in the GOPe ranks. But at least they have the big (R) by their name.

I think the bidding wars are now open.