UN Arms Trade Treaty DOA in US Senate

[The Dude]

If they can do something by executive order and an unratified treaty, they can do it by executive order and no treaty.

[b322da]

If they can do something by executive order and an unratified treaty, they can do it by executive order and no treaty.

Respectfully, Dude, this broad statement is quite arguable, if by the word "do" you mean "lawfully do."

As a matter of international law, both sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements are treaties -- all three express an agreement between our government and a foreign government or institution -- a contract, if you will. They are considered distinct only as a matter of U. S. domestic law. While the chief executive can "do" most anything, it is quite arguable that his authority to "do" something pursuant to powers given by a treaty, such authority not being granted to him by the Constitution itself, differs significantly depending upon whether the treaty we are dealing with is a Senate-ratified treaty, a sole-executive agreement or a congressional-executive agreement.

When an issue in this respect arises the door is opened to its resolution by our federal judiciary, which has in many cases struck down actions taken by the chief executive outside his authority as granted by neither the Constitution nor a treaty.

Jim

[hillfighter]

A treaty is not legitimate until the Senate ratifies it, according to the United States Constitution. No matter how the enemies of the US Constitution try to trick us, we can see for ourselves what it says in black and white. An unratified treaty is not made "under the Authority of the United States" and has no legal or moral weight in the US.

Can an evil government use force to do things it has no legal or moral authority to do? Yes. You will get no argument from me on that subject. History is full of examples of "might makes right" government, but historical abuses don't give legitimacy to those governments or their acts.

[b322da]

As this thread has slowed down, perhaps I can inject a little more life. While this note is not 100% "guns," it certainly is relevant to our discussion of the formalities, if any, required to bring the contents of the UN Arms Trade Treaty into force domestically. This draft "Agreement" is the latest public copy of our draft agreement with Afghanistan. This agreement could quite arguably keep us in Afghanistan forever, and keep out country at war forever. It would undertake the commitment of billions of dollars and perhaps untold American lives.

Nowhere in the draft do I see the word "Treaty." This draft is particularly of interest in that it contains additions and deletions proposed by the parties.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... cument.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Question: Would this "Agreement" as it currently stands require the advice and consent of our Senate before it could come into force domestically?

I look for an answer in either the affirmative or the negative and the reasons therefor. I would think that a discussion of the merits of this agreement/treaty might well be off-topic.

Edited to note that Reuters reports that Afghanistan says an agreement has been finalized. A later Reuters report says that the US says that there are still unsettled details. We are not favored with a copy of this "final"/"not-final" agreement.

Jim