Obama Will Sign UN Treaty That will cede US Sovereignty in Couple of Weeks!

Me | October 21, 2009 | abigail2

[abigail2]

Please listen to this tape of Lord Monckton Click here for Lord Moncton

and on Glenn Beck show...Glenn Beck interview with Lord Moncton

[abigail2]

Has everyone heard this? The UN Treaty that Obama will sign in EARLY DECEMBER that will sign our sovereignty away?

[TheGeezer]

The Senate has to approve any treaties the Chief Exec signs. Relax for now.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Yes sadly I know.

humor break

everytime Beck says this I LOL

[massgopguy]

This is the Copenhagen “World Government” scheme.

[Logical me]

King Obama the devout communists and anti-American hates America and will sell us out.

[melancholy]

Is it a Senate simple majority? If it is, nothing to be done about the rubber stamp.

[Marty62]

If he does IMPEACHMENT MUST FOLLOW.

[Señor Zorro]

Is it a Senate simple majority? If it is, nothing to be done about the rubber stamp.

"He [the president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.

Thankfully, it is not a simple majority.

[Tomato lover]

With those sitting in the Senate I feel a sword hanging over our heads.

[abigail2]

What can we do to stop this?

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

I would not relax so fast...

The majority democrats have already decided that Obama can do this.

Check the date on this article

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4BA79X20081211

Related thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2366389/posts

[MrB]

It has to be ratified in order to take precedent over the Constitution.

What can we do?

Make sure the Senate doesn’t ratify.

[Las Vegas Ron]

to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.

[MrB]

There needs to be another provision wherein the Senate can reject the treaty on the same vote, so that subsequent Senators may not ratify a treaty that’s been signed and sitting around for 20 years.

[luv2ndamend]

"He [the president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.

This is what is scary. Was the fed made by the cover of darkness with only a few members present? Would they do this at say the Christmas break? These people in charge scare me.

[Cboldt]

-- It has to be ratified in order to take precedent over the Constitution. --

Even if ratified, it can't countermand the constitution.

That said, the constitution isn't an effective barrier to elitists taking over the country. The mechanism they have been using is to twist the plain language of the founding document, and the people accord the decisions the imprimatur of legitimacy.

[Las Vegas Ron]

As it stands now can they get the 2/3's of those present and then it's law?

AFAIK, wouldn't they just need a quorum to ratify this?

[MrB]

Even if ratified, it can't countermand the constitution.

I'm afraid it does. This has been reviewed by Constitutional lawyers. The UN Rights of the Child Treaty in particular was the one that I heard a detailed analysis of this Constitution vs Treaty discussion about.

[Cheerio]

IMPEACH ! ! ! ! !!

[Señor Zorro]

Senators present concur

True enough, but we're looking at 60 Democrats to 40 Republicans. They still need 6 Republicans to vote with it. They may get it anyway, but if the vote falls on party lines the treaty will not be ratified.

I understand your broader point, that they might try to sneak it when there are fewer Senators present, but I'm trying to see the bright side of all this.