Its done. Kerry signed UN Arms Treaty.

[jaxjohn419]

He needs to be arrested. He is a traitor.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

Edited September 25, 2013 by jaxjohn419

[jaxjohn419]

I know. I know. It's UN. I was in a hurry to post it, and I can't edit the topic title.

[Spots]

He should be hung for treason. F' him and the UN. At least blue helmets make good targets.

Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Corker did do something right, this time, but the problem is, a future Senate can ratify this treaty, I think.

That's the danger.

 

Something I'm not sure of is that I thought the President had to sign it, not the SecState, for it to be valid

for the Senate to ratify. I just don't remember.

[Hozzie]

I know. I know. It's UN. I was in a hurry to post it, and I can't edit the topic title.

Try using the full editor.  It's an option at the bottom after you select "edit".

[jaxjohn419]

Thanks Hozzie! Done.

[bersaguy]

This has been discussed many times and back when Obama threatened to sign it the Senate told him then that they will never ratify it and you can bet they won't sign it with Kerry either. And I do think Kerry does not have the authority to sign it and has over stepped his authority and should be charged with Treason for his actions..........jmho

[cj0e]

 

Corker did do something right, this time, but the problem is, a future Senate can ratify this treaty, I think.

That's the danger.

 

Something I'm not sure of is that I thought the President had to sign it, not the SecState, for it to be valid

for the Senate to ratify. I just don't remember.

I believe you're correct in the assumption that later senates could confirm this treaty, and makes sense that they would want to go ahead and sign so that if they win seats/influence they can shove it through.

 

See below on the second part.

 

This has been discussed many times and back when Obama threatened to sign it the Senate told him then that they will never ratify it and you can bet they won't sign it with Kerry either. And I do think Kerry does not have the authority to sign it and has over stepped his authority and should be charged with Treason for his actions..........jmho

 

 

It's been a while since my last poli-sci course, but the process by which a treaty is signed and ratified, iirc goes like this:

1. Treaty is formed with input from the representative(s) of the United States during negotiating
2. Representative(s) submit terms of treaty to office of the Secretary of State for approval.
3. Secretary of State approves, then submits to the office of the President for approval.
4. President approves, then submits to the Senate for confirmation by 2/3 majority vote.
5. Treaty is confirmed, then resubmitted to office of the President for ratification.
6. President ratifies, then treaty goes into force..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Thanks for explaining that!

[Joseg]

Can we just do it got GP (General Purpose) since he's looks like Frankenstein, has turned his back on Joes, has lied about his past? Thought I'd ask.. 

[Titansfan]

Ratification of an international treaty takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate.  Very doubtful that this treaty will every be ratified.  After World War I, the United States did not sign the Treaty of Versailles and signed a separate peace treaty with Germany.  I recall, the US Senate would ratify a treaty to form the League of Nations.  Pres. Wilson ended up suffering a stroke campaigning on this issue.  SALT II, a treaty to limit nuclear weapons was never ratified but US Admin. went along with the principles of the treaty. 

 

I am extremely disappointed that Kerry signed the treaty but not surprised.  From what I have read, imports/exports of guns will require a register.  Being the ATF is under the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov't, there would be some attempts of a register.  What that will mean for already owned guns and sold/transfer between ourselves, I do not know.
 

[Guest nra37922]

Guns?  Guns!  What Guns???  Oh those, sold down by da'hood for cash.

[Spiffy]

Guns?  Guns!  What Guns???  Oh those, sold down by da'hood for cash.

 

A man's gots ta eat!

[Chucktshoes]

Would somebody hang the quisling bastard already? Edited September 25, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ratification of an international treaty takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate.  Very doubtful that this treaty will every be ratified.  After World War I, the United States did not sign the Treaty of Versailles and signed a separate peace treaty with Germany.  I recall, the US Senate would ratify a treaty to form the League of Nations.  Pres. Wilson ended up suffering a stroke campaigning on this issue.  SALT II, a treaty to limit nuclear weapons was never ratified but US Admin. went along with the principles of the treaty. 

 

I am extremely disappointed that Kerry signed the treaty but not surprised.  From what I have read, imports/exports of guns will require a register.  Being the ATF is under the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov't, there would be some attempts of a register.  What that will mean for already owned guns and sold/transfer between ourselves, I do not know.
 

Once signed by the President, not Horseface, it can be brought up by any future senate and ratified or rejected. The way

things tend to go in DC, there will be a strong enough senate in your lifetime to see it pass. I hope not, but hope will get you

a short distance. Once ratified it's done. For the time being, it has no hope for ratification, assuming Graham, Alexander,

McCain and Corker don't become Democrats. I put those four in Ahhhhlen Specter's camp.

[Oh Shoot]

Ratification of an international treaty takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate...

 

This one also takes 50 countries to ratify, as I understand it.

 

- OS

[JohnC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILGHjCl8QKw

[JohnC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG1-HXdV8ww

[Troutburger]

Ratified or not, there is legal precedent that the executive branch honors all treaties once signed.

The treaty could still be used as support for more executive orders.

It's another way to circumvent the constitution and checks and balances.

[frankmako]

fools.  we have fools in the government.  but it took fools to elect them.  so there you go.  it is going to be bad when the reset hits. 

[Guest nra37922]

fools.  we have fools in the government.  but it took fools to elect them.  so there you go.  it is going to be bad when the reset hits. 

I don't think that bad is a strong enough word.  Could make the Civil War look like a walk in the park.

[jaxjohn419]

i think we all know that it is going to need to be reset though.....

[Peace]

Interesting to me as more governments join and/or ratify this treaty- knowing that the government-to-government back-door arms trades have always been "outside the law",  this law can only serve to widen the power-gap between governments and the citizens those governments should be serving.   Ominous.

 

Let me also say, that I am absolutely for.. for... for compassion - for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all members of the human race.  It breaks my heart to see people in pain from violence - no matter who they are or where they are.  I want kids, women, and men to be safe in all countries, BUT... effectual stability, safety, and security (and root morality) will always be a local cultural issue - it has never been governmental and will never be.  Governments (the systems, not the individuals) are designed to rule... and if left unchecked, the system will work to bring every experience under that rule.  

 

Intersting about the United Nations... it generally lacks oomph to effectively adjudicate and regulate government entities that offend, so it has resorted to encouraging governments (many of whom are not egregious offenders) to regulate their own citizens.  

 

I don't buy into sinister conspiricy theories; I simply think the systems are functioning as they were designed - what are missing are effective checks and balances.   The world  - through increased population and technology is increasing in complexity.  (IT & programmers, check me on this) Whenever you increase the complexity of a system, you have to increase the structure (rules) to maintain stability and functionality.

 

Not to over-bibliocize this - but in wisdom literature, you can look to the Christian Scriptures:  Israel asked for a King - their God said, "You don't know what you are asking; trust me when I say, you don't want a King."  Israel essentially demanded, "Yes, give us a King!!"  - Israel got their kings and -through good and bad kings, Israel paid the price for giving their collective representation over to a King.

     In societies' desire for safety and security, masses of people are asking for a King - more rule of law - to keep them safe.  Many of us are responding... "You don't know what you are asking; trust me when I say, you do not want a King." 

 

Orwell much anyone?

[Byedan]

Vey well said

[Byedan]

Guys, the supreme court has already ruled that no treaty can over ride our constitution look it up Edited October 8, 2013 by Byedan