TexasCHLforum.com

hillfighter wrote:Until the Senate ratifies a treaty, it has no standing under the United States Constitution. For the legitimate government of the United States, bound by the US Constitution, an unratified treaty has as little legal meaning as an unratified amendment. Maybe that doesn't matter to "enemies, foreign and domestic" but then it will be moral to follow the example of the Maquis.

With respect, you deny what is a fact, Sir. The denial of facts undercuts one's case to the extreme and makes one's argument irrelevant. There is so much more to the U. S. law of treaties than one can ascertain from simply reading Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution and calling an end to one's inquiry. One might even say that the law is what it is, and is perhaps not always what one might want it to be. I assure you that I speak from personal experience with a treaty unratified by the Senate.

In neither this thread nor the other running on this general topic have I ever taken a position on the merits of the U. N. Arms Trade Treaty, and I see no value either way in my doing so. I am simply attempting to shed some light between the lines of unhelpful, often incorrect, comments here. It cannot be healthy to just sit back and see incorrect dogma spread around cyberspace taking upon itself, often depending upon its audience, the color of truth.

Jim

JALLEN wrote:The President can't do squat.

Just like Woodrow Wilson, let's see him get it ratified in the Senate. Most of those birds aren't as dumb as they look, or sometimes act. Most of them would rather be marinated in sheep poop than vote for something like that.

As quite correctly stated by Jaguar in the other thread dealing with this topic, John Kerry, our Secretary of State, signed the treaty for our nation, as the President's designee. The United States of America is a signatory.

International law has two primary sources, obligations assumed formally and obligations which are a part of customary international law. It is no secret, and it should be understood, that the United States of America has taken the position that widely accepted international conventions, or portions thereof, even though not ratified by our Senate, have become customary international law through the passage of time and broad acceptance, and that the obligations of such a convention or portions thereof will be respected and honored by the United States.

If the NRA, we and others, are going to get all hot and bothered by specific terms of the U. N. Arms Trade Treaty I would think that we would be well-advised to understand this, and dispute the obligations of that agreement on the proper level. Respectfully, Mr. Allen, IMHO to suggest that a failure of ratification is all that is required is just not always correct, and such a suggestion could cause opponents of the treaty to see comfort where comfort may not be found.

Jim