U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 ^ | 4/16/10

[roses of sharon]

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.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

[Eastbound]

whoops! 17 is correct after all.

[Chode]

Up... (+)

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Four boxes:
Soap,
ballot,
jury,
ammo.

Use in that order.

[Jack Black]

"By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress.

Well except that Treaties have to ratified. And not by a simple majority, but by a 2/3 Majority. That's 67 Senators. Zero/Hillary can't find enough to pass it in the Senate.

[culpeper]

No treaty can over ride the Constitution regardless of what ol crusty says. Tyrants never learn.

[sport]

This is right down obama’s alley.

[B4Ranch]

The article was written on
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT

Treaties have to ratified by a 2/3 Majority of the Senate.

[Still Thinking]

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.

I hope that's a typical urinalistic liberty taken because the author is incapable of composing the phrase "...on the grounds that allowing the UN to override the Constitution is a violation of national sovereignty and of the rights inherent in American citizens."

If that's the problem, I understand. I'll bet a lot of lib urinalists would have trouble composing or comprehending that phrase.

[Eastbound]

That's true. However, treaties cannot over-ride the constitution. The laws based on legally-passed treaties must be in pursuance to the constitution. That is, must be in agreement. Any law passed by congress, including any executive agreement, etc., passed by the president, must be in pursuance to the constitution.

I didn't realize the article was that old or I wouldn't have posted it.

[Outlaw Woman]

This is the bill that has the ‘small arms’ control in it. You know...any thing that a U.S. citizen owns is considered to be ‘small arms’.

[Lancer_N3502A]

Any Questions?