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.
Not so fast there hummingbird ....I asked a question and that don't answer doodlysquat. Im not just specifically referring to this arms regulation nonsense. This is a matter of whether or not our government has the power to bypass the people in granting the UN carts blanche within our borders. That could include anything from arms regulation to appropriations of food and medicine for use overseas and whether or not YOU, personally, are ok with Washington having that power. So...do you feel the Feds have or should have access to such a blank check? You see, many folks DO feel that the UN is the future of our nation and the world and are willing to sacrifice our constitution on the altar of globalization. Im just askin' where your views fall on that.
You forget that we are dealing with a POTUS who doesn't think he needs the approval of Congress when it comes to war. Why would he thing he needs ratification by the Democrat controlled Senate (which he could likely get)? This POTUS believes he answers only to the UN, not the people of the USA and not their representative Republican form of government.
Has congress brought charges?
Republicans wanting their President to be able to go to war whenever is one thing. Republicans letting the gun lobby down, even half of the Democrats letting the gun lobby down is laughable at best.
It would take half of Democrats in the Senate, and all of the Republicans to vote for it in order for the treaty to be ratified in the states.
We’ve received many queries about this chain e-mail, which refers to a proposed United Nations treaty to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons.
Much of what this e-mail claims is simply false. A "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" isn’t possible under our Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which held just last year that:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June 2008: (T)he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Furthermore, if an arms trade treaty ever materializes, the administration won’t be able to "bypass" Congress, as the e-mail maintains. All international treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before they are considered ratified and in effect.
In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens "subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail claims, is wrong. Treaties don’t subject one nations’ citizens to the laws of other nations. They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (a treaty signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress).
As for this particular treaty: First of all, it doesn’t yet exist. What is true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the earliest, result in a treaty.
I love the folks here giving their usual ah don't worry about this it wont effect anything attitude meanwhile that's the same thing they've been saying as our rights are being stripped away by the day by these clowns in DC. Bend over and spread em at the airport. Ah don't worry its for our good.
We’ve received many queries about this chain e-mail, which refers to a proposed United Nations treaty to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons.
Much of what this e-mail claims is simply false. A "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" isn’t possible under our Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which held just last year that:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June 2008: (T)he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Furthermore, if an arms trade treaty ever materializes, the administration won’t be able to "bypass" Congress, as the e-mail maintains. All international treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before they are considered ratified and in effect.
In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens "subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail claims, is wrong. Treaties don’t subject one nations’ citizens to the laws of other nations. They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (a treaty signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress).
As for this particular treaty: First of all, it doesn’t yet exist. What is true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the earliest, result in a treaty.
Thats 67 Senators if you didn't know, when was the last time any President enjoyed that much support?
I honestly would like to believe this, but then I remember it used to be necessary to get congressional approval to send our military to a foreign country and start shooting up the place too.
I'm gonna have to go with the suspicious folks who posted; the powers that be are not to be trusted on the matter. Hope for the best, assume the worst, in other words.
Republicans wanting their President to be able to go to war whenever is one thing. Republicans letting the gun lobby down, even half of the Democrats letting the gun lobby down is laughable at best.
It would take half of Democrats in the Senate, and all of the Republicans to vote for it in order for the treaty to be ratified in the states.
Unfortunately it does not appear as though Congress cares if the Constitution is upheld, despite their oath. They are allowing Obama to get by with the same garbage that Harry Truman did in sending our troops to Korea.
Our Senate has ratified a number of treaties which has compromised our national soveriegnty, most notably the joining of the WTO. Hillary clinton has long pushed for Senate ratification of LoST (Law of the Seast Treaty).
I hope this does not pass Senate ratification but the global Socialists keep gaining momentum. Their golden window of opportunity under the most radical administration this country has seen in nearly a century is just about over (thank God!).
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.
