UN Arms Trade Treaty DOA in US Senate

[Superman]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/ ... p=HPBucket

I'm a little ignorant on these kinds of treaties so here's my questions:

- Once the treaty is signed, is it forced to go to the Senate for a vote?
- If not, could the administration simply not send it to the Senate for a vote, therefore allowing them to continue to adhere to the "spirit of the treaty" via executive orders?
- If the treaty goes to the Senate for a vote and it is rejected, is the administration restricted from adhering to the "spirit of the treaty" via executive orders?

[Teamless]

If I remember my history lessons of 25+ years ago, the Senate has to approve all treaties, which if by approval it means to vote yea or nay on it, thats probably all they need to do.
If the Senate votes nay, then the treaty is not official and has no power.

[Jaguar]

Thread already running here: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=69251" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Superman]

Thread already running here: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=69251" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, similar thread, but this one is different and I have very specific questions.

[Superman]

If I remember my history lessons of 25+ years ago, the Senate has to approve all treaties, which if by approval it means to vote yea or nay on it, thats probably all they need to do.
If the Senate votes nay, then the treaty is not official and has no power.

I understand that the Senate has the authority to approve / reject treaties. This doesn't answer any of my questions. Let me rephrase:

- Once the Secretary of State signs a treaty, does it have to go to the Senate for a vote, or can it stay forever in "limbo" as signed but not ratified? The reason for this question (hence my second question) is since the administration now knows that the Senate will not approve it, can they simply not send it to them so that the administration can enforce the treaty via executive action?

- If the treaty cannot stay in a "limbo" state forever and has to go to the Senate for a vote, and the Senate rejects the treaty, is that rejection binding on the administration so that it is illegal for them to try to enforce the treaty anyway?

[chasfm11]

If I remember my history lessons of 25+ years ago, the Senate has to approve all treaties, which if by approval it means to vote yea or nay on it, thats probably all they need to do.
If the Senate votes nay, then the treaty is not official and has no power.

I understand that the Senate has the authority to approve / reject treaties. This doesn't answer any of my questions. Let me rephrase:

- Once the Secretary of State signs a treaty, does it have to go to the Senate for a vote, or can it stay forever in "limbo" as signed but not ratified? The reason for this question (hence my second question) is since the administration now knows that the Senate will not approve it, can they simply not send it to them so that the administration can enforce the treaty via executive action?

- If the treaty cannot stay in a "limbo" state forever and has to go to the Senate for a vote, and the Senate rejects the treaty, is that rejection binding on the administration so that it is illegal for them to try to enforce the treaty anyway?

The US never even signed the Kyoto treaty and the EPA is enforcing it. 'nuff said.

[Teamless]

- Once the Secretary of State signs a treaty, does it have to go to the Senate for a vote, or can it stay forever in "limbo" as signed but not ratified? The reason for this question (hence my second question) is since the administration now knows that the Senate will not approve it, can they simply not send it to them so that the administration can enforce the treaty via executive action

I do not believe it has any force without being ratified by the Senate.
Can the treaty be used via Executive Action, I once would have thought, "NO", but now....
If I were to go any further with my thoughts, i may break forum rules on political comments (hope I have not already broken them)

[sdmahoney]

As far as I can tell, they can hold onto the treaty in "limbo" until they think they can get it passed. They don't even have to resubmit it to the Senate each new Congress, it can just sit in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The treaty is not valid unless "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (art 2 Sec 2). It would then go on to ratification as spelled out in the treaty.

[Jaguar]

Well, I did reply to this issue in the other thread, but allow me to repeat myself.

Here is why I believe Obama, via his designated representative John Kerry, signed the UN Gun Treaty.

The signing does not make it law. What it means is Obama believes the treaty is a good idea and commits the administration to seeking ratification. The next step is to send the treaty to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations with a package of documents to go along with the treaty, including policy benefits and potential risks to the US, significant regulatory impact, analysis of the issues surrounding the treaty's implementation, whether it needs domestic implementing legislation or regulations to abide by the treaty, along with Reservations, Understandings, and/or Declarations (RUDS).

At this point the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action. It can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

I believe Harry Reid (D-NV) plans to have the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sit on the treaty until such a time as either the makeup of the Senate changes or, heaven forbid, there is another Sandy Hook type shooting and passions run high. It would be at that point, and maybe even with some trickery by calling in session without opponents present, that they would pass the treaty from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (chaired by Robert Menendez, D-NJ) to the Senate and by hook or by crook pass this monstrosity and send it back to Obama for implementation.

I believe they know that with the current makeup of the Senate there is no chance to pass this, but this doesn’t mean they cannot sit on the treaty and hope for something to change. Remember, Obama believes this to be a “good idea”, or else it would not have been signed, so all they require to pass it is the opportunity.

Also, it takes 2/3 of Senators present to pass a treaty. Look at the map of the Senate, should a super Katrina like event slam into Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, 13 Republicans could go home to help their constituents leaving the Senate with 53 Democrats, 32 Republicans, and 2 Independents making a vote 55-32, or 63%, not quite there, but sprinkle in a few RINOs in and poof, a ratified UN Treaty on Small Arms becomes law of the United States.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance – and unless we can get this voted on and solidly rejected it could sit there until the time is right, and when the time is right I would expect the Marxist Party to pounce on it. Look at the proposed laws that come up after Sandy Hook and before the bodies were even laid to rest, don’t believe it is beneath them.

[Superman]

Well, I did reply to this issue in the other thread, but allow me to repeat myself.

Thanks for the response! I found your original after looking further. For future reference, you can link directly to your response (instead of just to the thread itself) by clicking on the link at the top of your reply...it will link to it like this: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 51#p856682

Thanks again...your response helped me understand!

[Jaguar]

Well, I did reply to this issue in the other thread, but allow me to repeat myself.

Thanks for the response! I found your original after looking further. For future reference, you can link directly to your response (instead of just to the thread itself) by clicking on the link at the top of your reply...it will link to it like this: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 51#p856682

Thanks again...your response helped me understand!

You're welcome, and yeah I know about the link to post, but thought it needed repeating.

[The Annoyed Man]

Well, I did reply to this issue in the other thread, but allow me to repeat myself.

Here is why I believe Obama, via his designated representative John Kerry, signed the UN Gun Treaty.

The signing does not make it law. What it means is Obama believes the treaty is a good idea and commits the administration to seeking ratification. The next step is to send the treaty to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations with a package of documents to go along with the treaty, including policy benefits and potential risks to the US, significant regulatory impact, analysis of the issues surrounding the treaty's implementation, whether it needs domestic implementing legislation or regulations to abide by the treaty, along with Reservations, Understandings, and/or Declarations (RUDS).

At this point the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action. It can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

I believe Harry Reid (D-NV) plans to have the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sit on the treaty until such a time as either the makeup of the Senate changes or, heaven forbid, there is another Sandy Hook type shooting and passions run high. It would be at that point, and maybe even with some trickery by calling in session without opponents present, that they would pass the treaty from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (chaired by Robert Menendez, D-NJ) to the Senate and by hook or by crook pass this monstrosity and send it back to Obama for implementation.

I believe they know that with the current makeup of the Senate there is no chance to pass this, but this doesn’t mean they cannot sit on the treaty and hope for something to change. Remember, Obama believes this to be a “good idea”, or else it would not have been signed, so all they require to pass it is the opportunity.

Also, it takes 2/3 of Senators present to pass a treaty. Look at the map of the Senate, should a super Katrina like event slam into Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, 13 Republicans could go home to help their constituents leaving the Senate with 53 Democrats, 32 Republicans, and 2 Independents making a vote 55-32, or 63%, not quite there, but sprinkle in a few RINOs in and poof, a ratified UN Treaty on Small Arms becomes law of the United States.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance – and unless we can get this voted on and solidly rejected it could sit there until the time is right, and when the time is right I would expect the Marxist Party to pounce on it. Look at the proposed laws that come up after Sandy Hook and before the bodies were even laid to rest, don’t believe it is beneath them.

What he said. They won't kill it. They simply won't consider it, leaving it tabled for a more favorable Senate. This is one reason why it is crucial that conservatives/libertarians replace liberals/democrats in the Senate. If we can get a 2/3 majority, we can bring it to a vote and kill it permanently.

[Jaguar]

What he said. They won't kill it. They simply won't consider it, leaving it tabled for a more favorable Senate. This is one reason why it is crucial that conservatives/libertarians replace liberals/democrats in the Senate. If we can get a 2/3 majority, we can bring it to a vote and kill it permanently.

Actually all it would take is a majority to kill it, once conservatives take over the senate they gain control of the committees, and then can push it to the floor to die, even 51-49 vote will kill it.

Die treaty die!

[b322da]

Those wishing to know more about the U. S. law of international agreements might take a look at Wikipedia, as a place to start, while keeping in mind the inherent weakness of that source at times. Wikipedia is not always trustworthy, particularly when dealing with complicated legal issues. If nothing else, this article points out the complexity of this subject and shows that merely reading Article II of our Constitution cannot safely be the end of one’s research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Relevant to this thread is that three different kinds of international agreements have arisen as our domestic law has been developed by actions of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – the classic “treaty,” “sole-executive agreements,” and “congressional-executive agreements.“ These three domestic categories of international agreements differ substantially in both their enactment and their force.

According to this Wikipedia article:

“...Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties. Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements....”

The OP asks four very good questions which are not easy to answer:

1. Once the treaty is signed, is it forced to go to the Senate for a vote?
2. (a) If not, could the administration simply not send it to the Senate for a vote,
(b) therefore allowing them to continue to adhere to the "spirit of the treaty" via executive orders?
3. If the treaty goes to the Senate for a vote and it is rejected, is the administration restricted from adhering to the "spirit of the treaty" via executive orders?

At great risk of giving short answers to complex questions, and as a fool stepping in where angels fear to tread, I would only suggest that the answers to those questions might be:

1. No.
2(a). Yes.
2(b). Perhaps.
3. Probably not.

Jim

[rbwhatever1]

Good news for now. This thing keeps popping up and I don't believe it will ever be completely gone until we pull out of the UN, which is highly unlikely but one can hope...