Skip to comments.DeMint: Law of the Sea Treaty now dead
Posted on 07/17/2012 7:04:15 AM PDT by 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 treatys 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Any doubt in anyone’s mind that if Mitt Romney were president and was supporting this monster of a law that the number of Senators opposing this would be dramatically lower?
These things are never “dead.” It may be on hold for now, but it most assuredly, is not “dead.”
Exactly. ORomney is our despot which makes it OK.
Thats right. Treaties have no time limit and can easily come up for consideration much much later.
Sometimes these statements seem like shaped to make it dead so as to reshape another “better worded” and worse piece of legislation next.
Sounds like another sarcastic joke, indeed.
The Treaty is dead but Obama can do whatever he wants... or Justice Julia Robert in the Supreme Court can play too... ah, that’s the psyOps loophole for you.
We have the European Union bug... too big too fail etc...
So big it will fail, is the reality. When people and governments think they can be everything and too much of anything at one time and then excusing the incompetence... this is unacceptable thuggery and hypocrisy.
LOST is like Jason in Friday the 13th, you think he’s dead for good, but there’s always another sequel.
It won’t be truly dead till the USA walks away from the UN and it collapses.
Until it is actually voted down, it is merely dormant. Beware the lame ducks.
Damn! Obama should just ratify it with an executive order!!!
The absurdity of this logic is massive.
What this numb-nut just said, is that we need a new level of bureaucracy before we can be safe on the high seas. Hmmmmm, we had no safety before 1994? Really?
So now we really need permission from the U. N. to conduct any activity on the high seas? That's a good thing, something to be desired?
Why not require permission before you can get in the bath-tub sir? Don't you want to be safe there too?
Well, gee whiz, this is what Obama and his buddies at the UN and One World Government groups are wanting for the USA anyway and Obama is doing his dead level best to accomplish it.
Frankly..., I don’t even want to think about it.
McCain voiced support for it at one point, couching it with some malarkey about protections or some such. Never-mind that those protections could be eliminated at any time the U. N. wanted to.
He also wanted us to sign on the the I. C. C. He voiced the same comments about protections here too.
With Romney or McCain in there, we will have the same train wrecks that only a few more people will survive since Obama won’t be in there.
This next four years is going to be very ugly.
With all due respect, Sen. Demint(I love ya, man.), DEAD, my a$$. How many times has this thing come up? The ‘rats will keep bringing it up until it passes, count on it.
I’m often amazed at the regular posters here on Free Republic. I don’t claim to be one of them. But, without hesitation, any thread even mentioning Romney brings out the “I won’t vote for Romney because he’s just like Obama” crowd.
Conservatives are, by nature, far more informed and simply far more rational than liberals. In that regard, conservatives realize how presidential elections work. It comes down to two choices. Yes, I remember the Perot fiasco and the accompanying result. Point made. When liberals are cornered and asked to defend Obama, their answer is USUALLY.......”he’s the same as Romney”. That’s also what I see here.
I really don’t get it. The election of 2008 with John McCain as the nominee caused many conservatives to refuse to vote for him, he is a rino, even with Sarah Palin as his VP choice. The mantra at the time WAS........this will teach the party a lesson and the GOP will surely nominate a ‘true’ conservative (whoever that is). We have a primary contest, at least on this website, anyone supporting ANY of the candidates was attacked,claiming that their nominee surely wasn’t conservative enough, but there weren’t any solutions or candidates offered, just constant criticism of the candidate.
It’s soon to be crunch time. IF you live in a state where the electoral vote matters and you not only write in Donald Duck or something ridiculous in the presidential line, well, then you have zero room to complain about anything. Anything. If you live in Berkely, by all means, go for it.
Who’s your perfect candidate for 2016? Are you on the committee to nominate him or her?
I don’t know, I realize that some of you have to be sincere in your ‘in absentia’ backing of Obama, you DO understand the electoral process. Some coservatives think that the country going further downhill will send some sort of “message” to the GOP ( I heard the same thing in 2008 ).
Conservatives need places to ‘gather’ on the net. I really hoped and thought this would be a good place where rational people could clearly see the need to defeat Obama. But.......it seems that every single blessed thread.........the same “I won’t vote for Romney” stuff comes out.
You won’t vote for Romney. Gotcha. Please don’t insult the intelligence of those who *DO* understand the electoral process by claiming that your non-vote isn’t a plus vote for Obama. It is.
I really don’t understand it. I care about my child. I am worried for my child’s future under this regime. Obama would have FOUR YEARS of a lame duck presidency with absolutely no accountibility to anyone.........yeah, that will teach the GOP a lesson.
Now, I have to go to work because Obama’s economy simply stinks. WE are simply a family trying to survive.
Only 34? That's enough, but the entire freaking Senate should be opposed to it on Constitutional grounds alone.
We have a lot of work to do.
I really don't get it either. John McCain was pushing for us to sign on to this monstrosity.
It’s not dead, it’s pining for the fjords!
There are indications that Romney opposes LOST:
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!
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.
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 cant 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 its over.
If the Democrats table the bill, its 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 Democrats faces and unless they try trickery (and the GOP will eye them like a hawk for shenanigans) its over until next year (see above paragraph for future LOST prospects). It also means the Democrats realize that LOST is a lost cause and dont want to go on the record (those supporting LOST, and running for reelection in 2014, dont want this embarrassment to linger). Quite frankly, if enough Democrats decide to be a no-show theyll 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, youll know that LOST is DOA.
Simple as that.
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.
“DeMint: Law of the Sea Treaty now dead”
Yeah? I heard the same thing about Obamacare too—and it magically got passed.
More like Godzilla.
Nuke him and he keeps on coming...
May well have passed under a Romney regime.
Folks might want to ponder that...
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.
Does that explain Portman and Ayotte? Hmmmmmm.
Here ya go...it’s interesting to hear the master give the plain truth!!!
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..."
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.
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.
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....
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.
Well said. Thank you.
That is covered by Obamacare.
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.
I think the bidding wars are now open.
Is that why they call it tap water?
Heh heh heh...
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.