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.
It means Obama can't sign anything over to anyone.
It means we once again have an incorrect thread title aimed at rousing the rabble against Obama.
No, open your eyes. The bigger picture here is we have a President who is willing to sell out America to this nonsense, we'll see what kind of tactics they use to pass this.
I totally believe he would do it if he could , but I don't think it would be that easy, and if it were than they would just have to kill be, because I would never obey such a government.
I agree the whole Oboma administration must be stopped as long term we are surly headed that direction.
The President can unilaterally sign a de facto treaty by Executive Order. FACT.
In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, Congressional executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President. Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain Congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.
I didn't mean the treaty signing part of it, I menat that he was going to sign this particular treaty. The OP is tinfoil hat stuff.
I can't comment on that. He might be; I have not read up on the issue. If Obama chooses to sign it, depending on the type of treaty he might be able to. That is my point. It does not always take 2/3 of the Senate.
I don't want to waste 4 min. of my life watching this video (honestly, I just don't get the video thing on this board), but if you look at the thread title, it's a little far-fetched.
Obama=Communist=Domestic Enemy of the US Constitution=Treason=I concur
Oh the drama. I enjoy it though. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I don't want to waste 4 min. of my life watching this video (honestly, I just don't get the video thing on this board), but if you look at the thread title, it's a little far-fetched.
Oh but of course! Did you expect anything different? They are extreme conservatives posting who hate Obama and exaggerate EVERYTHING he does by 100000 percent.
It's amazing how Youtube has made everyone an expert on everything
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.
