Corker warns Obama Admin. Against any action to implement UN arms trade treaty withou

[Montecresto]

Has presidents acting unilaterally become so common place that something like this needs to be said?




WASHINGTON – Asserting the Senate’s constitutional role on treaties, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, in a letter today warned the Obama administration against taking any action to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty without Senate advice and consent.

“The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be fundamentally inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, law, and practice,” said Corker.


http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/?id=3f745079-64a8-4caa-992e-159a0292580f

 

[Pete7469]

The only thing that the moonbat messiah will listen to at this point is a high ranking military official who disarmed his secret service guards, and put him under arrest.

This country needs it's own Augusto Pinochet to send around 200K libtard corpses floating down the Mississippi River to feed the fish, and about 10 million of those assholes to flee to Cuba or North Korea for asylum. These assholes should be in an asylum anyway.

 

[Pete7469]

I can say that without any remorse whatsoever, because history has shown that when leftist despots take over, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people are systematically rounded up, tortured, starved to death, worked to death or simply gases and cremated. The despots stay in absolute power until they're killed or die. Wiping out commies saves hundreds of times that many people in the long run.

Pinochet had a few thousand commies killed and ran off the rest. He made Chile a prosperous country and reversed the socialist bullshit of his predecessors. He abdicated power and allowed for free elections and Chile remains a vibrant country thanks to his leadership.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm really curious about what exactly about this treaty raises "constitutional questions".

No one has been able too explain that to me, although everyone claims that it does.

The treaty is only 18 pages long, you'd think someone would be able to point out what "violates" the 2nd Amendment in it.

 

[Montecresto]

I'm really curious about what exactly about this treaty raises "constitutional questions".

No one has been able too explain that to me, although everyone claims that it does.

The treaty is only 18 pages long, you'd think someone would be able to point out what "violates" the 2nd Amendment in it.

U.N. treaty aims to disarm U.S. citizens

July 29, 2012 12:00 am0
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty follows a State Department plan that has been identified as a flagrant threat to the Second Amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign.

The 1961 State Department memorandum explains how the United Nations will oversee the complete disarmament of the American people under the ruse of preventing war (U.S. Department of State Department of State Publication 7277 Disarmament Series 5 released September 1961). The problem with this thinking is that the U.S. citizens who own firearms are not the ones who continually start wars around the globe.

This U.N. Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, the act given is that this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.



Read more: U.N. treaty aims to disarm U.S. citizens

 

[tinydancer]

Has presidents acting unilaterally become so common place that something like this needs to be said?




WASHINGTON – Asserting the Senate’s constitutional role on treaties, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, in a letter today warned the Obama administration against taking any action to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty without Senate advice and consent.

“The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be fundamentally inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, law, and practice,” said Corker.


US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: Press Room - Ranking Member

Senator Paul tonight said no way no how is this going to pass the Senate. He's on it as are others.

Great thread. I'm out of rep but will hit you tomorrow. Nice to see that Senator Corker put this in writing and made it very public.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I'm really curious about what exactly about this treaty raises "constitutional questions".

No one has been able too explain that to me, although everyone claims that it does.

The treaty is only 18 pages long, you'd think someone would be able to point out what "violates" the 2nd Amendment in it.

U.N. treaty aims to disarm U.S. citizens

July 29, 2012 12:00 am0
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty follows a State Department plan that has been identified as a flagrant threat to the Second Amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign.

The 1961 State Department memorandum explains how the United Nations will oversee the complete disarmament of the American people under the ruse of preventing war (U.S. Department of State Department of State Publication 7277 Disarmament Series 5 released September 1961). The problem with this thinking is that the U.S. citizens who own firearms are not the ones who continually start wars around the globe.

This U.N. Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, the act given is that this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.



Read more: U.N. treaty aims to disarm U.S. citizens

That story is over a year old, and it's referencing a memorandum that's over 50 years old. Please try again.

 

[S.J.]

And the Commie In Chief continues his non-stop assault on our Constitution, and he sure picked the right Sec. of State to carry out this one. We all saw what Kerry was made of when he slandered American soldiers in Vietnam. Now this, typical of that slimeball. I expect Obama to ignore Corker's letter, on the basis that he doesn't think he needs to follow the law.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I'm really curious about what exactly about this treaty raises "constitutional questions".

No one has been able too explain that to me, although everyone claims that it does.

The treaty is only 18 pages long, you'd think someone would be able to point out what "violates" the 2nd Amendment in it.

There's no questions to raise. The only thing the treaty does is try stop the international trade of weapons. How that's supposed to stop me from owning a gun I'll never know.

And in any case, Reid v. Covert, 351 U.S. 487 (1956), 354 U.S. 1 (1957) has already established that constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty.

The reason you're seeing outrage is probably because the US doesnt to lose it's ability to give weapons to crackpots overseas. We sure do love giving weapons to psychotic murders, you know.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

I can say that without any remorse whatsoever, because history has shown that when leftist despots take over, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people are systematically rounded up, tortured, starved to death, worked to death or simply gases and cremated. The despots stay in absolute power until they're killed or die. Wiping out commies saves hundreds of times that many people in the long run.

Pinochet had a few thousand commies killed and ran off the rest. He made Chile a prosperous country and reversed the socialist bullshit of his predecessors. He abdicated power and allowed for free elections and Chile remains a vibrant country thanks to his leadership.

Pinochet was bad ............ he just created an unnecessary bloodbath, all that silly voting nonsense on the verge of that country becoming a Utopia.

 

[Moonglow]

The UN treaty is only intended to stop illegals sales of arms to potential terrorists or murderous nations. In no way does it touch individuals or the 2nd Amendment. in fact it recognizes the rights of peaceful people and nations to have private gun ownership. But Tiny and the rest of the chicken little's will tell you anything they want, not what is factual.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm really curious about what exactly about this treaty raises "constitutional questions".

No one has been able too explain that to me, although everyone claims that it does.

The treaty is only 18 pages long, you'd think someone would be able to point out what "violates" the 2nd Amendment in it.

U.N. treaty aims to disarm U.S. citizens

July 29, 2012 12:00 am0
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty follows a State Department plan that has been identified as a flagrant threat to the Second Amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign.

The 1961 State Department memorandum explains how the United Nations will oversee the complete disarmament of the American people under the ruse of preventing war (U.S. Department of State Department of State Publication 7277 Disarmament Series 5 released September 1961). The problem with this thinking is that the U.S. citizens who own firearms are not the ones who continually start wars around the globe.

This U.N. Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, the act given is that this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.



Read more: U.N. treaty aims to disarm U.S. citizens

That story is over a year old, and it's referencing a memorandum that's over 50 years old. Please try again.

Well then:

As of yesterday,

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a "significant step" in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.

"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong," he said. "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes."

U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.

He claimed the treaty raises "fundamental issues" concerning "individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."

The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an "invasive registration scheme" by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on "end users."

Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it | Fox News

 

[Moonglow]

We would not want Corker to miss any more exportation of weapons to Syrian rebels.