1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty t

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Joe Potosky, Nov 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Joe Potosky

    Joe Potosky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,487
    It Begins...

    ---------

    After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks

    (Reuters) - Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $60 billion global arms trade.


    U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that negotiations collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge the United States denies.


    The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.


    But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's re-election to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.


    U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.


    The U.S. mission had no immediate comment.


    Countries that abstained included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. China, another major arms producer that has traditionally abstained from votes on this issue, voted in favor.


    The resolution now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.


    The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."


    It also expressed "disappointment that (the July treaty session) was unable to conclude its work to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the international transfer of conventional arms."


    ADVOCACY GROUP: STRONG TREATY NEEDED


    The resolution says that if all states are not able to agree o n a deal in March, the United Nations will keep the treaty on its current agenda. So if the March talks fail, the General Assembly could vote on it in 2013.


    Jeff Abramson, Director of Control Arms, an coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on a strong treaty.


    "Every day we are reminded of the need to bring the arms trade under control," he said. "In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now."


    "While agreeing on a deal next year is what's needed, we do not want any arms trade treaty," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."


    Britain's U.N. mission said on its Twitter feed it hoped that the March negotiations can agree on the final text of a treaty. Such a pact would then need to be ratified by the individual signatories before it could enter into force.


    The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. interest group, strongly opposes the arms trade treaty and had endorsed Romney.


    Arms control advocates had hoped Obama would back the treaty if he was re-elected.


    The United States has denied it sought to delay negotiations for political reasons, saying it had genuine problems with the draft as written. (Editing by Xavier Briand and Stacey Joyce)



    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/arms-treaty-un-obama-idINDEE8A60J120121107
     
  2. pretzel

    pretzel TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    353
    Pay attention to the fine print in the treaty.
     
  3. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,383
    Pray for gridlock.

    Call, write and email your rep and tell him to do it.
     
  4. Joe Potosky

    Joe Potosky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,487
    A treaty is only voted on by the Senate....

    A move today announced by Senate Majority Leader Reid to not allow the minority (Republicans) to filibuster.

    Saying that, treaties need to be approved by two-thirds of the senate.

    IT BEGINS....
     
  5. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,383
    Joe, you are correct a treay is ratified by the Senate, but the House appropriates all funds required for the enforcement of treaties, thus the House can impede or block ratification.


    No treaty can be effective without funds to enforce it.

    That is why over and over, I keep yammering the true power of the people lies in the House, not the Senate, which was originally supposed to be the representative of the State, nor the President who in the beginning was elected by the House.

    Mid term elections are just as important and generals, perhaps more so..


    Pray for gridlock.
     
  6. Joe Potosky

    Joe Potosky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,487
    Once the treaty is passed, game over.

    The Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution says, that “Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be supreme Law of the Land.”

    Federal Judges will force all to comply, funding or not, as now law of the land...
     
  7. Auctioneer

    Auctioneer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,965
    Obama now thinks he's unstopable. That is worst then a wounded bear in brush. We are in deep shit right now.
     
  8. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,383
    Yes, once it is passed, but the House is still responsible for the allocations of all funds for treaties.

    The House can starve any law or program it wants.

    No laws can be enforced without funds.

    Courts canot enforce any law. You need a law enforcement agency to do that. To have a law enforcement agency to be effective, it needs to be funded.
     
  9. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,383
    From the above link:

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution".


    The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".


    HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that


    1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

    2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,


    3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.


    "This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.


    This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.


    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,


    "... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

    "There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...


    "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).


    "In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.


    Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!"

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.