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]

“2/3 of Senators present can ratify a treaty.”

Good find, Philman-

Now watch them schedule a midnight session on Xmas eve!

There is also the possiblity of Obama ramming it through in s lame duck session.

We considered them needing to be ratified in the past because the Senate would not have dared played the tricks we’ve seen lately, nobody even considered the possiblity of the upper house refusing to even VOTE on a budget until now, right?

[xzins]

Good information, Phil.

However, the point is that the president cannot unilaterally sign a treaty AND have that treaty be the supreme law of the land.

Therefore, the Senate must have the 2/3rd vote for it to be ratified. Whether the full Senate or merely 2/3 of a quorum, the vote still must take place for the treaty to become law.

Of course, all 34 of the objecting senators SHOULD forward their notice of intent to object.

[Reaganite Republican]

I botched the “all” in the quote, but what’s the difference-? just asking.

It says we can be bound to international treaties until the Senate looks at it... that’s the entire concern right there, no?

You seem more studied than I but that is what I read that made me fear Morris could be right

[Reaganite Republican]

OKAY- I found the clip, he IS relying on the Vienna Convention, which we have signed, to implement the ATT WITHOUT Senate ratification

SO your point about the Vienna Convention is indeed the pertinent one... I sure hope you are right -not Morris- and that we are not bound to the VC, because that’s where Morris sees reason for concern here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCZykVhS3o

Much obliged for the input and education today, Philman

[Reaganite Republican]

Additional cause for concern re. Vienna Convention:

“Some countries that have not ratified the Convention recognize it as a restatement of customary law and binding upon them as such”

Perhaps we’ll be one of THOSE nations, if Dear Leader says we are...

111 nations have ratified it, and we are not exactly in the best company in not having done so... these are the 15 signatories who have not fully ratified:

“Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Iran, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Zambia.”

[philman_36]

It says we can be bound to international treaties until the Senate looks at it... that’s the entire concern right there, no?
No, man! Go back and read what you linked to. Great Britain was bitching and we told them to stop whining.
Go back to page 88-92 at your link... Whereas a measure known as the Hepburn bill (H. R. 2538), which enables the President to take the initiative in securing the necessary right of way, was passed by the House of Representatives at the last session of Congress, and which is now awaiting the action of the Senate, and a failure to pass this bill at this session would involve a renewal of all legislation and further serious menace to the commercial, industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests of the entire United States, as well as of countries having reciprocal trade relations with us; and

Whereas the great majority of the people of our country who have given intelligent consideration to this question in all its aspects are earnestly demanding that the work be inaugurated without further delay: Therefore it is

Resolved, That the National Board of Trade especially urges that the measure now pending in the United States Senate, above referred to (H. R. 2538), be passed without delay, to the end that immediate steps be taken for the commencement of the work on the lines recommended by the United States Canal Commission.

This is about a domestic bill!
Back to 93-97... Great Britain, therefore, must recognize the fact that in signing these protocols the United States openly disregards the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and this new fact brings forward the question of the violation of that treaty in a form that can not be avoided.

Under such conditions, created by the act of our Government, the Senate, whose alleged powers are most nearly involved in this serious question, should either affirm or disaffirm the right of the President to make these basic agreements with Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

And what are these "new facts" you ask? Back we go to 88-92 New facts, creating a new situation, have been imported into the canal question, which demand most careful consideration and decisive action, it is the act of the United States, lawfully accomplished, which has given important and unquestionable rights to two other independent Republics, and also to the United States, in exact accordance with the language and spirit of the House bill 2538.

Did you even read any of it before you linked to it? How did you even come by that info?!

[philman_36]

OKAY- I found the clip, he IS relying on the Vienna Convention, which we have signed, to implement the ATT WITHOUT Senate ratification
I don't trust a single thing that man says...ever!

Much obliged for the input and education today, Philman
If I came off sounding gruff accept my apology as that was not my intention.

[Reaganite Republican]

Read my last post, boss- it all comes down the the Vienna Convention... I hope you’re right and not Dick Morris

[philman_36]

However, the point is that the president cannot unilaterally sign a treaty AND have that treaty be the supreme law of the land.

I agree. However, we do have to be aware of the ways that this can be forced through.
People should be aware of the many ways in which it can be done.

Only knowledge, awareness and vigilance will prevent this treaty from being ratified.

[Reaganite Republican]

“Only knowledge, awareness and vigilance will prevent this treaty from being ratified.”

I am putting a priority on VIGILANCE-

I’m not here to defend Dick Morris -and you sure seem to know what you are talking about- BUT remember, he’s not saying what’s ‘right’- he’s telling you what kind of stunt Obama could ATTEMPT to pull

And nothing would surprise me emanating from this vile regime anymore, Phil

[Reaganite Republican]

“If I came off sounding gruff accept my apology as that was not my intention”

Not at all, that treaty link I posted in comments wasn’t helpful at all, you were totally right- did it in a rush before lunch lol

I learn more from Freepers than all other sources combined, it seems...

[philman_36]

...it all comes down the the Vienna Convention...

Lord...grant me patience and a joyful heart through all things.

@ Treaties Pending in the Senate (updated as of May 18, 2012)

4. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna May 23, 1969, and signed by the United States on April 24, 1970 (Treaty Doc.: Ex. L, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess.); submitted to Senate November 22, 1971.

[Reaganite Republican]

OK now you’re gruff lol

Seriously, it was never ratified by the US, BUT some other nations that didn’t ratify STILL consider it binding... makes me fear what Obama may attempt, that’s what Morris is saying

I dunno if Wikipedia is any more trustworthy than Morris, but it says “Some countries that have not ratified the Convention recognize it as a restatement of customary law and binding upon them as such”

Sounds like an opening for Dear Leader to pull some stunt, that’s all I’m saying- and if he felt constrained by the US Constitution, that would pretty much be a first

[philman_36]

I am putting a priority on VIGILANCE-
IMO vigilance without knowledge is wasted effort.

The patriots had to first know that the Redcoats were indeed marching and how they would be going.
And when it was affirmed the lamps were then lit and their vigilance was rewarded.
One if by land, two if by sea.

They go hand in hand.

[philman_36]

I dunno if Wikipedia is any more trustworthy than Morris, but it says “Some countries that have not ratified the Convention recognize it as a restatement of customary law and binding upon them as such”

LOL...I see they've got a @ "[citation needed]" at the end of that sentence.
The State Dept. link at 115 says pretty much the same thing.

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. That page also says this... There are 111 state parties that have ratified the convention,[7] and 15 states have signed but have not ratified the convention. These countries are: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Iran, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Zambia. Even Wikipedia refutes Morris.

Sounds like an opening for Dear Leader to pull some stunt...
He better make it a damned good one and people better have the knowledge necessary to expose that stunt for what it is.

[Reaganite Republican]

What about the knowledge of Obama’s recent history of ignoring any rule, law, or constitutional constraint that gets in his way?

EVERYTHING you say makes perfect sense, BUT I don’t think Morris’ argument -regardless of his personal credibility- should be too easily dismissed... as you yourself noted above.

Any who says ‘Obama can’t do this and he can’t do that’ is missing the point, imho- he will attempt anything he thinks he can possibly get away with!

Constitutional law and treaty technicalities mean little to him... meaning this info don’t do much for his opponents, either. If such knowledge allows one to rest assured “he can’t get away with this”, therein lies the real danger... that’s why I’m focused on vigilance, i.e. loopholes and even the most fringe possibilities of what this megalomaniac/narcissist MAY attempt to do- when his type is desperate, one shouldn’t restrain their imagination if they hope to restrain him

jmho

[zeugma]

I counsel caution. Obama is indeed attempting to push a revolt to give him the excuse to suspend the Constitution, invoke Martial Law and stop the elections.

I don't believe this is a real danger because elections are very important to the powers that be.  As long as we get to go out and pretend to vote for the candidates presented us by the PTB, we're not likely at all to revolt because we get to pretend that the system is "working".

[philman_36]

I don’t think Morris’ argument...should be too easily dismissed...
I would imagine that this will become a much more "current event" as more people weigh in during the upcoming days and weeks.

In the mean time this is what is being argued...we're bound to a new treaty by a treaty that has never been ratified by Congress.

The kernels are popping.

[Reaganite Republican]

“Obama will never sign such a document BEFORE the next election. He’s a libtard, but isn’t totally brain-dead when it comes to his political survival.”

WELL, you would think, Smedley... yet a lot of people -not just Dick Morris- think Hillary IS going to sign it, and before the end of the month!

So yet ANOTHER cause for concern, in light of your observations... WHY are they signing it, overpowering such practical political concerns?

SO many thinks Obama does makes it look like he has ZERO concern about what the electorate thinks- like there’s never going to be another election again... is there?

[boxlunch]

And considering that NO ONE in any seat of power seems to have the courage to stand up to Obama. As long as he keeps saying and doing things and no one has courage to stand up and draw a line in the sand (and I mean first, our elected representatives before a regular citizen),then he will keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Things that we couldn’t have dreamed possible four years ago. It doesn’t matter what the treaty laws and conventions are if no one in power is willing to stand up and say YOU CAN’T DO THAT! And declare it null and void.

At least at the time of the founding, we had brave, courageous, outspoken ELECTED representatives who were speaking out and standing up to King George. Where are our principled leaders now? Whether in the Congress, Senate, Military?