Skip to comments.
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
Reuters ^
| 14 Nov 2009
| Reuters
Posted on 01/08/2010 11:40:37 PM PST by RolandTignor
Not sure if you all have seen this. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; gun; obama; regulatearmssales
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
To: RolandTignor
A little bit of paranoia is useful; it keeps us all on our toes. But this is ridiculous. No treaty has any force or effect within the United States unless it is first ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The chances of that happening are precisely zero. In fact, in the current political climate, there is probably at least a two-thirds majority which would vote against the treaty.
The last thing the Democrats want right now is to get into a gun-control battle which they have no chance of winning but which will drastically increase the already-high danger to their incumbent Congressmembers and Senators.
21
posted on
01/09/2010 10:57:13 AM PST
by
dpwiener
To: RolandTignor
It’s getting very close to that time when we need to use the second amendment for its intended purpose.
Hint: it ain’t about huntin’.
22
posted on
01/09/2010 11:02:51 AM PST
by
meyer
(Government health care = national strike.)
To: cbkaty
Elections matter......As do candidates, and as long as the repubLICKans continue to present "liberal-lite" idiots like McCain, Snowe, and Graham, they will not be winning a majority.
23
posted on
01/09/2010 11:06:25 AM PST
by
meyer
(Government health care = national strike.)
To: dpwiener
No treaty has any force or effect within the United States unless it is first ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.Bull manure! That statement so full of "it" that it's not even funny!
Patrick Henry "Ratified": The Treaty Power, It's Perils and PortentsSimilarly, packages of as many as 34 treaties have been ratified by merely by voice vote.And that was by
members present!
Treaty Law: The Constitution's Original Trojan HorseThe problem is in the US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
"Senators present" not two-thirds of the full Senate. It's the Constitution's original Poison Pill.It's called a
midnight vote 'cause it happens in the dead of night!
Robert's Rules of Order Revised - VIII
Art. VIII. Vote.
Two-thirds Vote. A two-thirds vote means two-thirds of the votes cast, ignoring blanks which should never be counted. This must not be confused with a vote of two-thirds of the members present, or two-thirds of the members, terms sometimes used in by-laws. To illustrate the difference: Suppose 14 members vote on a question in a meeting of a society where 20 are present out of a total membership of 70, a two-thirds vote would be 10; a two-thirds vote of the members present would be 14; and a vote of two-thirds of the members would be 47.
The chances of that happening are precisely zero.
Don't be daft! The previous links should dissuade you from that stupid statement.
24
posted on
01/09/2010 11:54:18 AM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Carry_Okie
Since I knows you’re knowledgeable in the area would you lend a voice of consent on the misstatement I addressed above in reply 24.
25
posted on
01/09/2010 11:59:07 AM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: RolandTignor
So who was it that said the government doesn’t want to regulate arms?
26
posted on
01/09/2010 3:15:58 PM PST
by
wastedyears
(If I'm going out, I'm going out like Major Kong.)
To: RolandTignor
No, Hillary Clinton told them what she wants to do, it will take Senatorial ratification of this treaty to make it U.S. law.
Ain’t gonna happen.
To: Eska
Don't go hiding under the bed just yet. Don't worry, when the SHTF, I won't be hiding under the bed...
28
posted on
01/09/2010 6:36:33 PM PST
by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
To: Smokin' Joe
I know, you and me both. I meant to post to a previous poster.
29
posted on
01/09/2010 8:03:50 PM PST
by
Eska
To: Wonder Warthog
Meaningless alarmism. It doesnt matter what Obama and/or Clinton agree to. If the Senate doesnt ratify, its dead in the water. You mean that same body who just passed equally Unconstitutional "Health Care"? Only with guns, not a few RINOs would join in. Remember too that treaties only require 2/3 of the Senators who are present. Many RINOs, who nonetheless represent pro-second amendment states, would find reason to not be present when the vote is taken.
30
posted on
01/09/2010 9:04:41 PM PST
by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
To: Eska
No real offense taken, just wanted to clarify that.
31
posted on
01/09/2010 9:44:22 PM PST
by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
To: panaxanax
Its a 24/7 job just watching what is happening behind all of their distractions, healthcare etc. Thats why we belong to the NRA, JPFO, SAF, GOA.
Oath Keepers is another good group. You can join as a Citizen Associate member if you're not active or retired LEO or military.
Oath Keepers
Click here to join your State Group
32
posted on
01/09/2010 9:49:09 PM PST
by
EdReform
(Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
To: El Gato
"You mean that same body who just passed equally Unconstitutional "Health Care"? Only with guns, not a few RINOs would join in. Remember too that treaties only require 2/3 of the Senators who are present. Many RINOs, who nonetheless represent pro-second amendment states, would find reason to not be present when the vote is taken." Sorry, but disagree. RKBA is MUCH more a sensitive issue than health care. Of course, it is ultimately up to us to see it doesn't happen, in't it.
To: meyer
As do candidates, and as long as the repubLICKans continue to present "liberal-lite" idiots like McCain, Snowe, and Graham, they will not be winning a majority. Go to the head of the class!
34
posted on
01/10/2010 7:50:49 AM PST
by
cbkaty
(I may not always post...but I am always here......)
To: El Gato
“would find reason to not be present when the vote is taken.”
Only if they are retiring, Senators like their jobs.
35
posted on
01/11/2010 8:08:42 AM PST
by
east1234
(It's the borders stupid! My new environmentalist inspired tagline: cut, kill, dig and drill)
To: east1234
Only if they are retiring, Senators like their jobs. That's why they find reason to be absent, so no one can say they voted for the thing, even though in effect they cast half a vote for it.
36
posted on
01/11/2010 1:35:30 PM PST
by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
To: RolandTignor
as long as the talks operated by consensus,
I hope ya’ll are paying attention, this administration
continually uses “consensus” as a method to govern. It’s
become part of any liberal meeting/deliberation, it sounds
so reasonable but really lends itself to manipulation
by skilled leftists who are trained to use it.
Keep listening and you will find it popping up in all
kinds of settings, from Global Warming, to Middle East
peace, in all sorts of political/NGO areas.
37
posted on
01/11/2010 1:42:00 PM PST
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: RolandTignor
any treaty must adhere to the US Constitution... and not violate it. No matter who ratifies it.
teeman8R
molon labe indeed.
38
posted on
07/11/2012 6:46:58 AM PDT
by
teeman8r
(Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson