Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (520733)	11/8/2012 1:21:13 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793908

The treaty needs a vote of approval by 2/3s of the Senate for it to get ratified. Which fortunately isn't a realistic process here. But I posted the link (on the libertarian thread and on the 2nd amendment thread) as an indication of Obama's mindset with his "flexibility after the election".

To: Carolyn who wrote (520733)	11/8/2012 1:25:17 PM
From: Alan Smithee	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793908

Technically, the Senate does not ratify treaties, but approves a resolution of ratification. A 2/3 vote is needed. senate.gov Also, from Wiki: United States In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate a treaty, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds. In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.[1] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.[2] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is the Treaty of Versailles, which was part of the resolution of the First World War.

To: Carolyn who wrote (520733)	11/8/2012 1:28:03 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793908

It is likely that most advocates and supporters of the Second Amendment know that unless a treaty is ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, it fails to have any legal effect on American citizens. This confidence comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, to wit: He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur… According to Alonso that is a thin reed upon which to rely. In his study he remarks, “The ways in which the rights of private United States gun owners could be infringed are endless.” For example, The first way is the possibility that the President of the United States signs [a treaty]…. Signature by a United States President would indicate to the international community that the United States intends to abide by the gun control laws, with or without ratification by the Senate. [Emphasis added.] A second way these gun control laws could affect United States parties is in the event that gun control becomes a customary international law. Even if the United States did not sign on to [a] treaty, if the United States began to abide by [it], the United States may, in effect, be consenting to [that treaty] becoming customary international law. In the eyes of an international court, the United States, by following the treat[y], is consenting to be bound by the treaties in the future. Kopel agrees that a mere signature by the president would be sufficient to enact such a treaty, regardless of opposition by Congress. Kopel explains: “The United States Supreme Court has cited unratified treaties…as guidance for interpreting United States constitutional provisions.” What’s especially frightening is the current president’s propensity to sign, arbitrarily and unilaterally, numerous Executive Orders (EOs) to put in place his policies without the necessity of consulting Congress. To date he has issued 128 EOs, the latest concerning deportation of children of illegal immigrants residing in the United States. Faced with the increasing likelihood that Obama won’t have a second term to complete his agenda to turn the country into a European socialist society, complete with gun control laws, what would keep him from issuing an EO approving the UN Arms Trade Treaty in July?