UN Small Arms Treaty - revived

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

What timing, eh?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/18/un-reopens-talks-on-nra-opposed-arms-trade-treaty/

 

GG ~

[Badlands Bob #61228]

I wondered when Obama and his crew would drag this out again.

[Col. Nathan C. Riddles, SASS # 7462]

This first came about when Slick Willy was frolicing with Monica in the oval office. It takes a 70% majority of the senate to ratify any treaty entered into by the government. They have never gotten close to ratification. They ought to just give up & forget it. But they won't because they want a communist government. They are so self centered and arrogant that they think they can make it work when no other country has been able to. But before they can go communist they must disarm us, the people of the USA. We must never allow that to happen.

[Guest Loophole]

I know a lot of Dems - and none of them are sitting around praying for a Communist government. Some of them are afraid of the independence and non-conformity of free men; some sincerely believe that we should all live in Utopia, with no crime, no hunger and complete peace, but without the realization of the cost of such control. I don't believe Obama wants to be the next Stalin. But I do believe that he lacks any respect for individual liberties when they are in conflict with his political goals.

[Guest Loophole]

I know a lot of Dems - and none of them are sitting around praying for a Communist government. Some of them are afraid of the independence and non-conformity of free men; some sincerely believe that we should all live in Utopia, with no crime, no hunger and complete peace, but without the realization of the cost of such control. I don't believe Obama wants to be the next Stalin. But I do believe that he lacks any respect for individual liberties when they are in conflict with his political goals.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

This first came about when Slick Willy was frolicing with Monica in the oval office. It takes a 70% majority of the senate to ratify any treaty entered into by the government. They have never gotten close to ratification. They ought to just give up & forget it. But they won't because they want a communist government. They are so self centered and arrogant that they think they can make it work when no other country has been able to. But before they can go communist they must disarm us, the people of the USA. We must never allow that to happen.

 

Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution says explaining powers of the President "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 ..."

 

Where did you get the 70%?

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Not only do all Treaties have to pass 2/3rds of the Senators present.....

( I have wondered what about the concept of a quorum with respect to this wording.)

But it also has to pass muster in the Supreme Court.

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

No treaty can violate our Constitution .

[The Shoer 27979]

Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution says explaining powers of the President "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 ..."

 

Where did you get the 70%?

2/3 is almost 70% like maybe 3.3% from it

[Wolfpack Jack]

I know a lot of Dems - and none of them are sitting around praying for a Communist government. Some of them are afraid of the independence and non-conformity of free men; some sincerely believe that we should all live in Utopia, with no crime, no hunger and complete peace, but without the realization of the cost of such control. I don't believe Obama wants to be the next Stalin. But I do believe that he lacks any respect for individual liberties when they are in conflict with his political goals

 

 

 

 

That's the problem, that's the liberal fantasy. That's where we draw the line in the sand to defend free enterprise, free speech, free religion, freedom to defend oneself and homestead, freedom against illegal search and seizure, and all the freedoms that make life worthwhile and that are guaranteed in our Constitution. Those are the free principles that drive humanity forward, not the backward notion of "Utopia"...the Russians have been trying that, by force, for 100 years and look where they are. WJ

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

2/3 is almost 70% like maybe 3.3% from it

 

2/3rds is the way the US Constitution describes it. 70 % is NOT the same! (Really 3.33333%)

With 100 senators this is the difference between 67 and 70.

That makes a difference between 2/3rds and 70% of 3 senators.

 

67 to pass or 70 to pass, which one? Constitution says 67.

70% would therefore be erroneous.

[Utah Bob #35998]

I am very concerned about laws passed by our elected officials, not international treaties.

[High Sierra]

I am very concerned about laws passed by our elected officials, not international treaties.

+1

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

I am very concerned about laws passed by our elected officials, not international treaties.

 

I am concerned about all laws that even attempt to encroach our 2nd Amendment - domestic and international - and so is the NRA.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-nra-square-off-over-small-arms-treaty/2013/03/16/ae495dae-8d76-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html

 

Keep vigilant to all of it - don't put blinders on. Of course we have our local, state, and national issues....but keep attentive to ALL attempts to stifle our 2nd Amendment right!

 

GG ~

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

NO international treaty can violate our Constitution. Obama can sign as many of those he wants, no big deal.,

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

NO international treaty can violate our Constitution. Obama can sign as many of those he wants, no big deal.,

 

For now ...yes - but again - it's the continue attack on the 2nd Amendment - let's say...20-30 years from now... that the Senate does in fact have a huge liberal shift and they feel the Constitution needs changes to 'keep up with modern times' - that could be trouble. You need to get your head out of the sand and think of the future of America - not just you.

 

Your 'head-in-the-sand' thinking is the same that folks thought about the 'untouchable' 2nd Amendment - now look where we are are...folks like you and your complacent thinking are dangerous to this Republic.

 

GG ~

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

I agree with GGs last post. We must be ever vigilant of the threats to our 2nd Amendment. That is why I have posted the details of how a treaty is ratified.

Many believe mistakenly that the Constitution says that it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to ratify. The ACTUAL wording is 2/3rds of the senators present. This suggests that the ratification of a treaty does NOT require a quorum. This could be used as a backdoor by devious democrats to get it ratified.

 

In Article II section 2 referring to the powers of the President the constitution prescribes the power of the treaty as;

 

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

 

 

The senate is only one part, the next is that the Supreme Court would get a chance to reject the treaty as unconstitutional.

 

Another evil to pay attention to is the history of "treaty" like things that the President signs without senate approval.

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

True ,we must be vigilant but do not become distracted by issues that have no bearing on the 2nd amendment.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

True ,we must be vigilant but do not become distracted by issues that have no bearing on the 2nd amendment.

You don't get it....obviously.

 

GG

[The Shoer 27979]

2/3rds is the way the US Constitution describes it. 70 % is NOT the same! (Really 3.33333%)

With 100 senators this is the difference between 67 and 70.

That makes a difference between 2/3rds and 70% of 3 senators.

 

67 to pass or 70 to pass, which one? Constitution says 67.

70% would therefore be erroneous.

in my eyes Hacker it dose not mater if it is 67 or 70, every one that votes for a un treaty should be tried for treason period

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

You don't get it....obviously.

 

GG

I do get it very well, I do not waste the precious time the good Lord gave me worrying about henie penny propoganda.

[Guest James O'Meara]

Unless congress and the supreme court are willing to back it up, the constitution is just another old piece of paper.

 

The O'Meara Himself

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

Unless congress and the supreme court are willing to back it up, the constitution is just another old piece of paper.

 

The O'Meara Himself

And tomorrow the planet may spin out of orbit.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

I do get it very well, I do not waste the precious time the good Lord gave me worrying about henie penny propoganda.

No...you don't get it.

 

GG

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

in my eyes Hacker it dose not mater if it is 67 or 70, every one that votes for a un treaty should be tried for treason period

 

 

I agree the treason part but we must be able to count and KNOW how many it takes.

It was not clear you knew how many it takes.

That difference of 3 could make the difference in who gets lobbied to stop ratification.

[Madd Mike #8595]

I wondered when Obama and his crew would drag this out again.

just as soon as the assult ban showed failure

[The Shoer 27979]

I agree the treason part but we must be able to count and KNOW how many it takes.

It was not clear you knew how many it takes.

That difference of 3 could make the difference in who gets lobbied to stop ratification.

 

Fair enough, but if this treaty dose get to the Senate, if 65 vote for it I will meet you in DC and we can beat hell out of 66

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Fair enough, but if this treaty dose get to the Senate, if 65 vote for it I will meet you in DC and we can beat hell out of 66

 

You have a date except we might need to wait until 66 then do 67.

Unless the 2/3rds of those present means anything. Then it may only mean 60 of 90 senators present etc.