US Senate does NOT have to vote on the UN Gun treaty

[spacemanvic]

Vienna, Geneva - it all European to me

[Preble Pro]

But, if Obama is re-elected it won't be our government! It shall be his!

...But for how long?

[Gman106]

Preliminary research reveals that the US is a signatory to the Vienna Treaty (the so-called Treaty of Treaties) but the treaty was never ratified by the Senate.

Still unclear as to the legality and force of law of a treaty that the US has signed but not ratified. This seems to be the key question.

[oblivionboyj]

Preliminary research reveals that the US is a signatory to the Vienna Treaty (the so-called Treaty of Treaties) but the treaty was never ratified by the Senate.

Still unclear as to the legality and force of law of a treaty that the US has signed but not ratified. This seems to be the key question.

If it was not ratified by the senate, then we are not signatories.

All treaties have to be done within the system of government of the parties in agreement.
A king may sign, and that is that.
There is no need for anything else.
We have no king, and our diplomats have no power.
If the senate didn't ratify the treaty then we are simply not signatories.

[ungawa]

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.

There is no Constitution, and the government works however it wants.

5 years later it goes to the Supreme Court. And they say:

"We won't interfere with how Executive and Legislative branches conduct their business. It is up to them whether or not they feel their procedures are appropriate, and we will never rule on their procedures. We will rule on the constitutionality of laws passed, but we don't believe in the constitution so that's basically a popularity contest around these halls."

Where have you been?

[internet troll]

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/

I'm not sure if Morris is correct and have a lot of doubts about his assertions. A. He keeps stating that the Senate has to ratify the treaty. Based on everything I've read over the last couple of months, the Senate does not ever ratify a treaty, The treaty has to be presented to them and they go through an advice and consent process. At the end of the process the Senate either consents to the treaty or does not. If they consent to it with a 2/3rds vote, the President then ratifies the treaty. In that video he keeps using the word ratify which might not seem like a big deal, but you would think he would use the correct terminology.

Also I have read in a couple of places that the President can only ratify a treaty after it goes through the advice and consent process. There have been hot button issues in the past where the president really wanted something, but had to back down when the Senate said they would not consent to the treaty.

We signed the Kyoto treaty, which meant that we would commit to looking into it. Signing is not enforceable, It must be ratified to become the law and be enforced. Signing basically says that we will spend time looking into the treaty an gives countries a chance to discuss and debate if they really want the treaty or not. Clinton really wanted to ratify the Kyoto treaty, but had to back down when Senators said they would not consent to it.

Once the treaty is ratified then the federal courts start to enforce the treaty and make American adhere to it. If it has not been ratified then the Federal Courts can not enforce the treaty.

Here are a couple of links that I have gotten some of my information from. I'm can't say for sure that Morris is wrong, but I've read enough that I have my doubts and think that he is placing to much emphasis on the signing. I will do further research because I would like to know more.

Here are links that explains the difference between signing and ratifying a treaty.
http://suite101.com/article/the-diff...treaty-a287524

http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrec...ification.html

How the U.S ratifies a treaty:
http://www.ehow.com/how_5110577_ratify-treaty.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification

http://www.childrightscampaign.org/w...atify-treaties

[Gman106]

If it was not ratified by the senate, then we are not signatories.

All treaties have to be done within the system of government of the parties in agreement.
A king may sign, and that is that.
There is no need for anything else.
We have no king, and our diplomats have no power.
If the senate didn't ratify the treaty then we are simply not signatories.

According to the OP, Morris is postulating a scenario wherein the treaty could effectively usurp our Constitution without Senate ratification. Just trying to validate or invalidate Morris' position. I believe he bases his position on tenets of the Vienna Treaty (which we actually never ratified). Are we, in fact, compliant with the Vienna treaty despite the lack of ratification? If so, this would form the basis for Morris' argument

Would like someone versed in international law to weigh-in

[General Geoff]

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.

Hah, good luck with that.

[General Geoff]

double post

[Coops]

According to the OP, Morris is postulating a scenario wherein the treaty could effectively usurp our Constitution without Senate ratification. Just trying to validate or invalidate Morris' position. I believe he bases his position on tenets of the Vienna Treaty (which we actually never ratified). Are we, in fact, compliant with the Vienna treaty despite the lack of ratification? If so, this would form the basis for Morris' argument

This according to the State Department website

Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?

No. The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.

This is still ambiguous. It does not say which provisions the US thinks are customary international law.

However, Hillary Clinton and Obama are sure to interpret it as binding and he has never worried about constitutionality before.