Dick Morris: Obama to Sign UN Gun-Grab Treaty and RAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS

Reaganite Republican ^ | July 18, 2012 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

But the Senate will never ratify, you say?

Guess what, they don't need to...

Speaking on Fox and Friends this morning, Dick Morris explained that when the US signs such an international treaty, the nation is bound until the Senate rejects it or the President renounces it. In just nine days from now, the terms of this treaty will be finalized.

Morris went on to say that this heinous agreement -which would in-affect repeal the the Second Amendment and deny us all of the divine right to self-defense- will likely be signed by Obama... then Harry Reid will simply never bring it up for a vote, keeping the ATT treaty in-effect.

Then, if Dear Leader actually manages to win a second term and continues with his ongoing date-rape of this country, he will of course never renounce it, either... meaning we're stuck with it for a minimum of 4.5 years, in which time they'd be able to assault your Second Amendment gun rights relentlessly... a fait acompli

What to do?

Sign this White House petition, which can be loosely translated as "From My Cold, Dead Hands!"... -here- 

____________________________________

TownHall   AR15 forum

[Reaganite Republican]

“Oh, OK then.

People who take Constitutional interpretation from a toe-sucker are bound to get easily riled up.

Never mind that the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say otherwise - if Dick Morris says it, that’s good enough for me /s.’
_________________________________________________________

The Constitution can be worked around -as we learned recently- and the court is not as concerned with upholding it as in being invited to Beltway dinner parties -as we also learned recently

And did anybody see THAT coming?

Nobody I know did

I dunno if Morris understands the Constitution... but he sure seems to have Obama sussed better than many

[fr_freak]

I'd be curious to know what the sources were for this research. If they were government-related, then you still don't know what was true. But, in either case, did it justify burning all men, women, and children to the ground on the chance that there might be some molestation going on? That gives a whole new meaning to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" except now it's "burning the baby down with the alleged child rapists."

The government could have snagged Koresh at any time when he left his compound, but instead they launched a military assault which slaughtered everyone. Even if there had been genuine child rapists in there, this method is unacceptable.

[tsowellfan]

Yup, they went in to save the children by burning them up. I remember that day. April 19th. It was on my birthday.

[Joe Boucher]

Boehner is a gutless piece of shit.

[Reaganite Republican]

“I wish we could all be like Texas. That’s why I love Texas so much!”

If Obama wins or cancels the election and Texas secedes, that’s where I’LL be~ I hope they’d be willing to grant a Yank a green card

[cuban leaf]

Nothing justifies what happened there.

However, it did not justify us going all “founding fathers” on our government either.

Thing is, they can only get away with so much before people DO go all “founding fathers” on them. Claire Wolfe famously said, “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

This was in the 90’s

I still think we are at that awkward stage, but when I don’t, I’ll be Mel Gibson in The Patriot. But it took significant personal events to turn him around. Likewise here.

[fr_freak]

I still think we are at that awkward stage, but when I don’t, I’ll be Mel Gibson in The Patriot. But it took significant personal events to turn him around. Likewise here.

Well, I guess that's where we differ. I believe in our founding principles, and it doesn't take a personal tragedy for me to see the need for remedial action. Every time our government craps on the Constitution, I take it personally. I was pissed 20 years ago because I saw then what it meant and what it would inevitably lead to. I have just been waiting for the rest of the country to catch up.

[cuban leaf]

I’m not saying it necessarily needs to be a personal tragedy, but it’s got to get a lot worse than it is now. So far, people are talking about what “could” happen.

I’m watching for when it “does” happen, if you and the FBI reading this get my drift.

[nanetteclaret]

I think there are more Oathkeepers out there than we realize. (I hope!)

[Reaganite Republican]

“Utter Nonsense.
The only way you repeal the 2nd Amendment is by force of arms (use of military troops. The citizen of this Country are not going to willingly comply with a UN treaty. The Police are not capable of taking our weapons from us and I truly believe here would be open revolt if the military was ordered to do so. So what> The UN is going to send UN troops in? Get serious.......”

---

Did you read the post?

Obama would sign it and we are bound until the Senate REJECTS it, not just parked until the RATIFY it

So Reid won’t vote on it... and if Obama won re election they’ll incrementally inflict as much as they can get away with-

I’d rather err on the side of caution and vigilance than fear appearing to be an alarmist, you can be paranoid enough with this vile regime!

[Eva]

Dick Morris called into the Hannity radio show the other day and tried to talk about this and Sean wouldn’t let him. He kept cutting him off. So, it makes me wonder why. Does Hannity have some doubts, or is this topic off limits for some reason?

[Reaganite Republican]

Changed to Morris’ petition on my site, here’s the link

http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/7175/gun-control/

[philman_36]

Preventing it going through the Senate simply means that it has not met the 2/3rds requirement of Senate approval.

tx_eggman is right, xzins, you've got it wrong.

2/3 of Senators present can ratify a treaty.

For example...
@ PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

S10667

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A division has been requested.
Senators in favor of the ratification of this treaty, please raise their hand. (After a pause.) Those opposed will raise their hands.
With two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Presiding Officer, the Senator from West Virginia, and the clerk.
By the way, just for information, these treaties were all approved by the Foreign Relations Committee on October 4 and 5.

2/3 of the Senate wasn't there. Those present voted for the ratification. The quorum call was rescinded with no objection. That's 34 treaties ratified with a hand count!
It doesn't matter if they aren't present when the vote comes up.

So we have the potential of all these "stand up guys" simply not showing up when it comes time to vote and they can then truthfully claim "I was against this treaty".

They need to formalize their intent to object.
Executive Calendar

When a notice of intent to object is given to the appropriate leader, or their designee, and such notice is submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record and the Senate Executive Calendar, or following the objection to a unanimous consent to proceeding to, and, or disposition of, matters relating to nominations and treaties on their behalf, it shall be placed in the section of the Senate Executive Calendar entitled “Notice of Intent to Object ”. (S. Res. 28, 112th Congress) Don't forget the importance of this either... When a notice of intent to object is given to the appropriate leader, or their designee, and such notice is submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record and the Senate Executive Calendar...

It could be ratified due to one person simply not doing their job properly.

Senate Consideration of Treaties September 15, 2009

Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the final vote on agreeing to the resolution of ratification, with whatever reservations or other propositions may have been attached to it, requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting (a quorum being present). A two-thirds vote also is required to agree to a motion to postpone indefinitely further consideration of the treaty and accompanying resolution, because adopting that motion has the effect of disposing of the treaty permanently.

@ quorum
The number of senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.

[Reaganite Republican]

“The President may bind the country to anything he may say or do until the Senate considers the treaty in full” (pg 93):

http://books.google.com/books?id=kwYsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=treaty+binding+until+senate+rejects+it&source=bl&ots=bU-bX4Srys&sig=Okd5_zB_W9Q2xxK4qpF_6FBNxLM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M9wGUIa3A4Ow2QXWpZnOBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=treaty%20binding%20until%20senate%20rejects%20it&f=false

This was thought necessary by the Framers to allow the president the ability to negotiate, and he can agree to things piecemeal with the UN or other nations and they hold until considered by the Senate IN FULL.

Yet another concern would be Obama ramming it through in a lame-duck session... the possibility of that strategy being implemented here is real indeed.

Obama signing it is BAD anyway you look at it, and I wouldn’t be count on the Constitution -which Obama routinely ignores- NOR the Supreme Court, who seem more interested in working around it at this point.

[philman_36]

This guy is talking out his backside!

Even the UN disagrees with him!
@UN Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) Treaty Section

1. Adoption
"Adoption" is the formal act by which the form and content of a proposed treaty text are established. As a general rule, the adoption of the text of a treaty takes place through the expression of the consent of the states participating in the treaty-making process. Treaties that are negotiated within an international organization will usually be adopted by a resolution of a representative organ of the organization whose membership more or less corresponds to the potential participation in the treaty in question. A treaty can also be adopted by an international conference which has specifically been convened for setting up the treaty, by a vote of two thirds of the states present and voting, unless, by the same majority, they have decided to apply a different rule.
[Art.9, Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties 1969]

2. Acceptance and Approval
The instruments of "acceptance" or "approval" of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.
[Arts.2 (1) (b) and 14 (2), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]

Having noted that it should also be noted that the US was not a signatory of the Vienna Convention.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
No. The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.

Good on Morris for calling attention to it, but he should at least know what he's talking about.

You got a video link?

[Reaganite Republican]

PS-

This is what Morris is talking about, and I read alternative views elsewhere... sounds like vigilance is the way to go in absence of certainty, no?

Like Levin says.. we are now living in a post-Constructional US- 2 out of 3 branches now openly disregard/twist it

[EnquiringMind]

How is Romney looking now, folks?

[sport]

I don’t. I wish I could say I did, but looking back at the lack on action when obamacare was rammed down our throats, I can’t. Then it was that and since from, their point of view, we did nothing except bitch a little, now this. And it will something else next. Like Hitler in Europe during the 1930s he [obama] won’t stop until he is stopped. And again like Hitler, the only thing that will stop him is blood.

[philman_36]

“The President may bind the country to anything he may say or do until the Senate considers the treaty in full” (pg 93):

There is no such quote as that!
Here is the whole sentence, not the snippet you have up!

Whether, in conducting a negotiation consisting, it may be, of many successive steps, the President can bind the Government to anything he may do or say until the Senate has finally considered the entire scheme and has approved every point in it by a two-thirds vote is a question that involves the consideration of his powers as Chief Executive under the Constitution. They are as broad as is necessary for conducting and concluding negotiations with any foreign nation, and are, therefore, in that respect as broad as those of any such nation.

There are only two returns for "full" on pages 93-97 and neither of them go with your "quote".

[philman_36]

I suggest everyone read reply 119 after reading reply 114.