Posted on 07/16/2012 1:14:46 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AP) — A treaty governing the high seas is all but dead in the Senate as two Republican senators announced their opposition Monday, giving conservative foes the necessary votes to scuttle the pact.
Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire — both mentioned as possible running mates for likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — said they had serious concerns about the breadth and ambiguity of the Law of the Sea treaty and would oppose it if called up for a vote. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate — 67 votes — to ratify a treaty; Portman and Ayotte bring the number of opponents to 34 along with Sens. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., and Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.
The development was a blow to the Obama administration, military leaders and the business community led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who had argued that the treaty would improve national security and enhance U.S. standing in the world. They had pressed for ratification of the treaty, which was concluded in 1982 and has been in force since 1994. The United States is the only major nation that has refused to sign the pact.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and other conservatives have led the campaign against the treaty, contending that it would undermine U.S. sovereignty. DeMint heralded the latest development on Twitter, saying, "34 Senators now oppose LOST, sinking the misguided treaty."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Wow! Great news!
I hope that 34 figure is meant as 34+. I expect the dems to slavishly follow their dear reader, but I don’t like the idea 13 GOP Senators were willing to sign away our sovereignty.
> So what happens if/when Obama signs this treaty and then
> enforces it without Senate approval?
Nothing.
The president has admiralty, treaty or no.
Difference is, the next president can choose to ignore it, UNLESS it is a treaty.
I don’t like it being one-vote close, either.
Could be planned that way. If I'm a senator who opposes LOST, and I know we already have enough to kill it, but for various reasons, I may not bother to voice an opinion one way or the other. Politicians are tricky like that.
I believe 11 GOP senators are up for re-election this year.
Is there a single dem senator who opposed this awful so-called treaty? I don’t think so.
I sent Johnny Isakson a no chit email Thursday and got a bunch of other people to do it on the same day. The guy is a total RINO. You cannot trust him to ever vote the right way. I’m glad to see he finally put his finger in the wind.
Sooooooo, 66 Senators are more than willing to give away our SOVERNITY!!!
Totally right. We need to take names and kick a##es. I'm sure one of them is Richard Lugar who won't be back for the next congress.
Assuming a quorum of 51, treaty ratification only requires 34 Senators present.
BTW, this is a flat out lie, disinformation at its finest.
Nothing.
False. The President can begin to enforce the treaty ratification or no, pursuant to a treaty that was never ratified but by which the USA has abided for forty years: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. That is why Bush rescinded the signature on the International Criminal Court treaty.
Dick Morris is on Hannity now an stated Hillary will sign it on the 27th of this month. It will then be.signed by bho .... If the senate just sits on it an doesn’t bring it to a ratification vote then it will be valid till voted down.
I will go find the.link ...
Anyone else listen to Sean H’s show today an.hear this ?
There may be more—you’d hope—but 34 is what we need and we got it.
Too busy playing multi-national bingo and other regulatory forms of looting the trough! These people are ‘empty suits’ that are only held accountable by a simple majority of voters every six years. Don’t rock the barge Baby!
>> If the senate just sits on it an doesn’t bring it to a ratification vote then it will be valid till voted down.
I did a little research on it (I’m certainly no expert).
I don’t think a true treaty works that way, i.e. takes effect unless voted down.
There *are* some other forms of international agreement that can be/have been signed by the executive branch alone, and take effect without Senate ratification. So maybe it depends on just what sort of animal LOST is.
Here’s a link full of lawyerspeak that may or may not be useful to you. Please let me know if you can figure out the answer from it, ‘cause I can’t with certainty.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/12.html
OK, so what IF 0bama enforces this “treaty” without ratification?
Are they going to impeach him?
Not hardly.
He was talking about the ATT (small arms treaty)
They might him impeached in the House, but like Clinton, the Senate (controlled by Reid) will save him and with the sympathy of the nation he’ll coast to re-election. Use your brain.
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.