Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Undoubtedly inspired by Obama and UN actions to nullify the Second Amendment, last year Rep. Culberson sponsored a proposed amendment to the US Constitution which reads as follows:
Quote:
No treaty, Executive order, or any agreement with any nation or group of nations or any of the provisions of such agreements, shall be construed to diminish any of the rights or privileges guaranteed to citizens of the United States under the Constitution of the United States, and Federal law.
In theory, one of the reasons why the Senate must give their approval before treaties can be ratified by the President is to ensure that those treaties do not violate any aspect of the US Constitution. In regard to our inherent rights protected by the US Constitution, they cannot be diminished, only suppressed by government.
I also doubt the wisdom of such an amendment. Since we already know that neither Democrat nor Republican Senators give a damn about the US Constitution, what makes anyone think they would adhere to this proposed amendment?
It may sound nice, but if the Senate is going to approve a treaty that they know will violate the US Constitution, then this amendment will certainly not stop them. However, I do like this proposed amendment with regard to Executive Orders. Presidents should never have the authority to enact unconstitutional Executive Orders.
Undoubtedly inspired by Obama and UN actions to nullify the Second Amendment, last year Rep. Culberson sponsored a proposed amendment to the US Constitution which reads as follows:
In theory, one of the reasons why the Senate must give their approval before treaties can be ratified by the President is to ensure that those treaties do not violate any aspect of the US Constitution. In regard to our inherent rights protected by the US Constitution, they cannot be diminished, only suppressed by government.
I also doubt the wisdom of such an amendment. Since we already know that neither Democrat nor Republican Senators give a damn about the US Constitution, what makes anyone think they would adhere to this proposed amendment?
It may sound nice, but if the Senate is going to approve a treaty that they know will violate the US Constitution, then this amendment will certainly not stop them. However, I do like this proposed amendment with regard to Executive Orders. Presidents should never have the authority to enact unconstitutional Executive Orders.
The President does not ratify treaties. The Senate does. If it has objections, it's free to refuse to do so with any treaty they like. In fact, they've done so many times.
This Constitutional amendment is not needed and doesn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of ever getting out of Congress, let alone being ratified by the states. It's election year grandstanding, posturing to "look good" to his radical base back home and nothing else.
But, it captivates the imagination of the simpletons who don't know how their government operates and why.
The President does not ratify treaties. The Senate does. If it has objections, it's free to refuse to do so with any treaty they like. In fact, they've done so many times.
This Constitutional amendment is not needed and doesn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of ever getting out of Congress, let alone being ratified by the states. It's election year grandstanding, posturing to "look good" to his radical base back home and nothing else.
But, it captivates the imagination of the simpletons who don't know how their government operates and why.
Incorrect. The Senate provides "advice and consent" under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Once approval has been given by two-thirds of the Senate, the President ratifies.
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
The proposed amendment was sponsored on 08/25/2011 and has absolutely nothing to do with elections. You are the last person who should be talking about "simpletons who don't know how their government operates and why."
Undoubtedly inspired by Obama and UN actions to nullify the Second Amendment, last year Rep. Culberson sponsored a proposed amendment to the US Constitution which reads as follows:
In theory, one of the reasons why the Senate must give their approval before treaties can be ratified by the President is to ensure that those treaties do not violate any aspect of the US Constitution. In regard to our inherent rights protected by the US Constitution, they cannot be diminished, only suppressed by government.
I also doubt the wisdom of such an amendment. Since we already know that neither Democrat nor Republican Senators give a damn about the US Constitution, what makes anyone think they would adhere to this proposed amendment?
It may sound nice, but if the Senate is going to approve a treaty that they know will violate the US Constitution, then this amendment will certainly not stop them. However, I do like this proposed amendment with regard to Executive Orders. Presidents should never have the authority to enact unconstitutional Executive Orders.
Treaties and EOs that violate the constitution are invalid - so what exactly would this amendment do that isn't alraedy law?
Undoubtedly inspired by Obama and UN actions to nullify the Second Amendment, last year Rep. Culberson sponsored a proposed amendment to the US Constitution which reads as follows:
In theory, one of the reasons why the Senate must give their approval before treaties can be ratified by the President is to ensure that those treaties do not violate any aspect of the US Constitution. In regard to our inherent rights protected by the US Constitution, they cannot be diminished, only suppressed by government.
I also doubt the wisdom of such an amendment. Since we already know that neither Democrat nor Republican Senators give a damn about the US Constitution, what makes anyone think they would adhere to this proposed amendment?
It may sound nice, but if the Senate is going to approve a treaty that they know will violate the US Constitution, then this amendment will certainly not stop them. However, I do like this proposed amendment with regard to Executive Orders. Presidents should never have the authority to enact unconstitutional Executive Orders.
Great idea. Obama's executive orders and like edicts from a dictator. This is probably the only way to check his assault on the Constitution.
Great idea. Obama's executive orders and like edicts from a dictator. This is probably the only way to check his assault on the Constitution.
Let's see some of those executive orders everyone keeps talking about, so far no one has been able to when I ask... They just pretend they didn't see my question...
Treaties and EOs that violate the constitution are invalid - so what exactly would this amendment do that isn't alraedy law?
If the Senate gives their consent with two-thirds of the vote, and the President ratifies the treaty, then the treaty carries the same weight as the US Constitution itself. They are not invalid, and could potentially alter the US Constitution. See Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;..."
Executive Orders do not require congressional approval and can be just about anything. FDR used an Executive Order (EO #9066) to place all the Japanese Americans in internment camps during WW II. Truman issued an Executive Order (EO #10340) that put all steel mills in the nation under federal control. In the latter example the Supreme Court held the Executive Order to be invalid in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952). To date, the Supreme Court has only held two Executive Orders to be invalid. Normally it requires two-thirds of Congress to invalidate an Executive Order, which is nearly impossible especially considering today's political climate.
Incorrect. The Senate provides "advice and consent" under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Once approval has been given by two-thirds of the Senate, the President ratifies.
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
The proposed amendment was sponsored on 08/25/2011 and has absolutely nothing to do with elections. You are the last person who should be talking about "simpletons who don't know how their government operates and why."
The President has the Constitutional authority to negotiate and sign treaties, but the Senate has the responsibility of consenting to that treaty, an authority commonly defined as "ratifying." No treaty can take effect without that consent.
However, nothing is to be gained by a semantics debate.
So, let's concentrate on your proposed amendment. Since the Senate has the power to reject any treaty which they feel might compromise the Constitution (or for any other reason..or none), why is such an amendment necessary or desirable?
Pretty sad when Congress thinks they need an amendment to back up our rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Do they think someone will just waltz in and take over and sign away our rights ? Rights which they themselves can uphold as they have the power to do something about it.
Let's see some of those executive orders everyone keeps talking about, so far no one has been able to when I ask... They just pretend they didn't see my question...
Note: Just because some people don't like the idea of EO's doesn't make them illegal or un-Constitutional.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
