Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate passes support of 2nd Amendment and to keep us out of the UN Arms Trade Treaty bill.
US Senate Votes ^ | 23 March 2013 | US Senate

Posted on 03/23/2013 4:02:03 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult

S.Amdt. 139 to S.Con.Res. 8

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

YEAs 53 NAYs 46 Not Voting 1


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0nos; 2ndamendment; armstrade; banglist; guncontrol; guns; rollcall; sadlibs; secondamendment; senate; treaty; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last
Seems like a good thing looking at the way the votes went with some Dem crossovers. Anyone know if there's a downside to it?
1 posted on 03/23/2013 4:02:05 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
A downside? Besides making J. Effin’ Kerry cry, none at all.
2 posted on 03/23/2013 4:09:24 AM PDT by JPG (Stay strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

Let’s see - a vote to stay with the Constitution. That’s nice.


3 posted on 03/23/2013 4:13:47 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
46 voted no!!!!!!!
4 posted on 03/23/2013 4:17:53 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPG
Sorry:

The downside was a 53-46 vote.

That's way too close for comfort.

It means that 46 of those sorry mother-lovers want to give your sovereignty away to the United Nations. That number may grow. That is the downside.

5 posted on 03/23/2013 4:18:39 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JPG

Downside was not the best word for it. What I’m asking is if the left already has an end run in place around the bill even before it was voted on.


6 posted on 03/23/2013 4:19:03 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Treasonous bastards!!!!


7 posted on 03/23/2013 4:22:17 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

The left is always plotting and scheming but a 2/3 yes vote on this one is not very likely.


8 posted on 03/23/2013 4:23:40 AM PDT by JPG (Stay strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

NAYs -—46 All the Usual Ones... Here they are, Tea Party; Let’s fire them..

Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH)

Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA)

Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL)

Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA)Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)


9 posted on 03/23/2013 4:32:45 AM PDT by Christie at the beach (I like Newt. Our nation's foundation is under attack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

This also chilled me to the bone.

46 people who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States are willing to hand over sovereignty.

46 people have made it clear that they are enemies of the United States.


10 posted on 03/23/2013 5:00:43 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

US Senate Votes
Violating Oath of Office is a Federal Crime

(what for and why they voted)
Statement of Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and. (forget anything after and.)

Vote Counts: YEAs 53 NAYs 46
Not Voting 1

Alphabetical by Violating Senator Name
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Cowan (D-MA), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

GUILTY...
Fine, Fire, then lock their A$S up..

Just Saying,


11 posted on 03/23/2013 5:20:16 AM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Exactly. When was it ruled upon that a so-called treaty could be approved that usurped our sovereign and Constitutional rights?

This concept of multi-nationalism is being pushed by globalists and multi-national corporations and neocons because national sovereignty is more than an annoyance to those who see national borders as an annoyance and impediment to their agenda.


12 posted on 03/23/2013 5:25:36 AM PDT by apoliticalone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
46 people have made it clear that they are enemies of the United States.

And what are we doing about it?

(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)

It's time to quit watering the Tree of Tyranny. If we won't even do that, we sure won't do anything really strenuous.

13 posted on 03/23/2013 5:55:54 AM PDT by HomeAtLast ( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

“...I) Reid (D-NV) R...”

Attention NRA! This is not a 2A supporter but a wolf is sheep’s clothes. Shout it out LaPierre!


14 posted on 03/23/2013 6:15:44 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (One "bitter clinger" praying for revival. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: apoliticalone

Vienna Convention on Treaties.

signed by US in 1970.


15 posted on 03/23/2013 6:20:36 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

The downside is that this “vote” is meaningless. It is theater, designed to give dems up for reelection some cover against attacks on their anti-2nd-amendment views. this is an amendment to the senate budget proposal that will NEVER be signed into law.


16 posted on 03/23/2013 6:27:07 AM PDT by Hugh the Scot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPG
Last I heard The Senate can vote all they want but their vote alone can not change or remove the amendments to our constitution.

There is a process on changing our constitution.

The rest of the process seems to be missing.

17 posted on 03/23/2013 6:53:19 AM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: riverss

Glad to see my CO participants voting the party line way, especially so soon after Chickenpooper signed the 2nd Amendment rights of Coloradoan patriots away this past Wednesday. I’m really starting to despise that entire side of the aisle.


18 posted on 03/23/2013 7:06:13 AM PDT by The FIGHTIN Illini (Wake up fellow Patriots before it's too late)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
What I’m asking is if the left already has an end run in place around the bill even before it was voted on.

Yes. A treaty can be legally ratified with 34 votes out of a quorum of 51 Senators.

19 posted on 03/23/2013 7:38:42 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: apoliticalone
When was it ruled upon that a so-called treaty could be approved that usurped our sovereign and Constitutional rights?

Try parsing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution without any "wishful thinking" blinders and you'll note that first comma before the phrase, "under the authority of the United States." It's a problem.

We have treaties on the books that wildly exceed the enumerated powers of the Constitution yet not one has ever been thrown out.

20 posted on 03/23/2013 7:41:09 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson