Replies

****Besides, can't Bush "unsign" this treaty right now, thus rendering the Senate ratification meaningless? ****

I don't know........but would appreciate a 'ping' if you find out.

****Besides, can't Bush "unsign" this treaty right now, thus rendering the Senate ratification meaningless? ****

I don't know........but would appreciate a 'ping' if you find out.

Me too, please...hope so, and sounds likely...or else no possible way the Senate will ratify by a 2/3 vote...

Okay, I did a little digging, and it is true: As long as Bush "unsigns" the treaty before the full Senate votes on it, it's ZESTfully dead, and any action the Senate takes is irrelevant. For plenty of proof, just go to Google and plug in "Bush CEDAW treaty unsign".

And again, I fully believe there's no way 2/3 of the Senate would vote to ratify anyway. You'd need every single RAT plus 16 truly left-wing Republicans, of which there are only two or three IMHO. (There are a lot of RINOs, but RINOs aren't nearly as bad as true leftists.)

Of course, it's also completely unconstitutional. The treaty would require the US to violate states' rights, destroy the First Amendment, force the US to report to the UN on how well we were implenting the treaty's demands (total violation os US soverignty), etc. If it did pass, some group would get a judge to issue an injunction, and it would spend a few years bouncing around the federal courts until the SCOTUS completely slam-dunked it 9-0.

Oh, one more thing: No matter what treaties, UN or otherwise, we may or may not ratify, the simple reality is that if the president wants to withdraw from one or simply ignore it, he can do so and nobody can stop him. This is just what Bush did with the START II treaty. He simply said "we're withdrawing," and that was the end of it.