US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
Just listened to a radio interview with Dick Morris.
Should the president sign any agreement with the UN in regard to the gun treaty, according to the Geneva Convention, the US Senate would not need to vote on it in order for it to become the "law of the land" of the signatory country. It would only take the signature of the president. And since Harry Reid decides what gets put on the calendar to be voted on, it would never come up for a vote in the Senate and therefore become defacto law.
Is it time yet?
Watch the short video in total before commenting. Very interesting.
http://www.dickmorris.com/un-shelves...v-lunch-alert/
Re: US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
The US is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention.
We wrote it, we adhere to it, but we never signed it.
Re: US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
Did you watch the video? Morris does a better job at explaining it than I have.
Re: US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
I can't watch it, I am at work.
What I can do is read what you quoted...
Quote:
for it to become the "law of the land" of the signatory country
Fist off, the US is not a signatory country.
We never have been.
Second, no international treaty can superceed the US constitution.
International law only applies in 2 places; in international territory, or in a country that agrees that it applies in that country.
I am not making the case that this treaty is not very dangerous, I am just saying Dick Morris is wrong if his argument is predicated on the US being a signitory to the Geneva Convention.
Re: US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oblivionboyj
I can't watch it, I am at work.
What I can do is read what you quoted...
Fist off, the US is not a signatory country.
We never have been.
Second, no international treaty can superceed the US constitution.
International law only applies in 2 places; in international territory, or in a country that agrees that it applies in that country.
I am not making the case that this treaty is not very dangerous, I am just saying Dick Morris is wrong if his argument is predicated on the US being a signitory to the Geneva Convention.
When you get a chance, watch the video. I'm missing something in the translation. It's not predicated on that, but does present an interesting scenario if The One wins reelection. I'm not doing it justice. You gotta watch it.
Re: US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
Where was it again that oMao paid attention to the Constitution??
Re: US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oblivionboyj
The US is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention.
We wrote it, we adhere to it, but we never signed it.
Morris is talking about the Vienna convention, not the Geneva convention. It is a treaty we signed (The Treaty of Treaties) that would enforce any new treaty that the President has signed but that the Senate has NOT rejected. In this scenario, if Obama signs the treaty and Harry Reid does not bring it up for a vote, then it is de facto in effect until either the senate votes to not ratify or the new president renounces Obama's signature. It is conceivable that Obama is reelected and Republicans do not win back the Senate. In that case, senators do not have to vote to ratify or not ratify and given Reid's past history, he would let it fester in committee for four years (or at least two) while the treaty could legally (according to international law) be enforced by the UN. Senators would be happy they did not have to stick their necks out.
Re: US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Coops
Morris is talking about the
Vienna convention, not the Geneva convention. It is a treaty we signed (The Treaty of Treaties) that would enforce any new treaty that the President has signed but that the Senate has NOT rejected. In this scenario, if Obama signs the treaty and Harry Reid does not bring it up for a vote, then it is de facto in effect until either the senate votes to not ratify or the new president renounces Obama's signature. It is conceivable that Obama is reelected and Republicans do not win back the Senate. In that case, senators do not have to vote to ratify or not ratify and given Reid's past history, he would let it fester in committee for four years (or at least two) while the treaty could legally (according to international law) be enforced by the UN. Senators would be happy they did not have to stick their necks out.
I can see his argument, but that is not how our governemnt works.
No matter what the Vienna treaty says.
Any treaty not validated by our senate means nothing to the US.
The Vienna traty did not change the constitution, even if it meant to.
Re: US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oblivionboyj
The US is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention.
We wrote it, we adhere to it, but we never signed it.
It doesn't matter anyhow because Morris cites the Vienna Convention, one I have no familarity with and one I have no wish to research at this moment.
In essence he's saying that if Obama signs the treaty (after it is adopted by the UN Gen'l Ass'y) it is in effect under the Vienna Convention until such time as it is either voted on and rejected by the Senate or repudiated by the President. The kicker her is if Obama is re-elected and signs the treaty if the Dems and Harry Reid retain control of the Senate. This being needed since Reid would support Obama by never bringing the treaty up for vote and thus the treaty is enforced by default.
Of course now someone should be thoutful enough to research and explain the Vienna Convention.
Re: US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oblivionboyj
I can see his argument, but that is not how our governemnt works.
But, if Obama is re-elected it won't be our government! It shall be his!