Time for Congress to Act is Now.

[24Carat]

Who was it that said "The internet is not a playground for the thin skinned" ? Oh, that would be me.

 

[dirtfarmerz]

John Adams wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Obama studied the Constitution so he knows how to subvert it. It is my opinion that the NWO folks are pulling the strings, but Obama and his crew are just the most aggressive and willing bunch to ever be in this position. They are not stupid so the signing of the UN gun ban should not be viewed as a mistake or some misguided effort on their part. Everything they do is for a future goal. Some of their efforts have been revealed recently. We could say that those efforts were a mistake or misguided, but they probably won him the election.

Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts

 

[jbdhere]

The section I pointed out in my link was to show how a president's actions predated the Senates by 6 months. Now that I see you can read look at page 113 and 114 ---
G. INTERIM BETWEEN SIGNING AND ENTRY INTO FORCE;
PROVISIONAL APPLICATION ---

It ‘‘must normally rest on the President’s own con-
stitutional authority.’’68According to the Department of State, the
President may also make a unilateral policy decision, without
reaching agreement with the other parties to apply the treaty pro-
visionally, ‘‘so long as the obligations undertaken are all within the
competence of the President under U.S. law.’’69The primary factor
for determining the appropriateness of provisional application, in
the State Department view, ‘‘relates to the immediate need to set-
tle quickly matters in the interest of the United States which are
within the President’s domestic law competence.’’70
An example of a treaty pending in the Senate that has been pro-
visionally applied by executive agreement is the maritime bound-
ary agreement between the United States and Cuba, signed Decem-
ber 16, 1977. ......


Now you want to debate the US Constitution?

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths --- Paragraph 2 ---
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

Bold inserts of emphasis by me.

 

[jbdhere]

24Carat No thin skin on this man. Just too busy to bother with people who go through life being critical without having suggestions for improvement.

However sometimes like for you I make exceptions and try and teach you something. Note I said try.

 

[jbdhere]

FYI for anyone following this string.
I received 2 responses on Monday. Both very supportive and both understanding of the emotion I put into my letters.

Senator Joe Donnelly
Congressman Todd Young

Monday Morning Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the isles Urged Obama not to sign this treaty.

So I ask; What did you do to "help" on this topic?

 

[Stschil]

The section I pointed out in my link was to show how a president's actions predated the Senates by 6 months. Now that I see you can read look at page 113 and 114 ---
G. INTERIM BETWEEN SIGNING AND ENTRY INTO FORCE;
PROVISIONAL APPLICATION ---

It ‘‘must normally rest on the President’s own con-
stitutional authority.’’68According to the Department of State, the
President may also make a unilateral policy decision, without
reaching agreement with the other parties to apply the treaty pro-
visionally, ‘‘so long as the obligations undertaken are all within the
competence of the President under U.S. law.’’69The primary factor
for determining the appropriateness of provisional application, in
the State Department view, ‘‘relates to the immediate need to set-
tle quickly matters in the interest of the United States which are
within the President’s domestic law competence.’’70
An example of a treaty pending in the Senate that has been pro-
visionally applied by executive agreement is the maritime bouhttp://www.youtube.com/embed/KPW_E16fmwc?autoplay=1nd-
ary agreement between the United States and Cuba, signed Decem-
ber 16, 1977. ......


Now you want to debate the US Constitution?

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths --- Paragraph 2 ---
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

Bold inserts of emphasis by me.

Considering the Fact that the Senate has already held. Preemptory Vote Against the UN Arms Treaty, the (p)Resident would willing and knowingly be signing without this consent and therefore not have the protections of your above, ever so pompously, provided bathroom reading material.

As far as Constitutional arguement is concerned, your quote is true, however, mine is HOW those Treaties become Law. S

 

[uberpeck]

I agree with the OP because he understands the true nature of the situation America is facing; it is arguable whether the President has power to do such-and-such or does not have the power to do such-and-such, with consideration unto Constitutional legality. We could argue until we are blue in the face over numerous issues that fall under a criteria of "authority." However, the problem lies inherently within the fact that it IS arguable. That means that the situation is up for debate, up for interpretation. The paradigm has shifted in the political arena, and if you say it's "never gonna happen blah blah blah," your perception of normalcy has shut your eyes to the current situation.

Take for instance the military action in Libya, instigated by members of the current administration. The Constitution holds that war powers belong to Congress; however, the admin said that it was a legal action with regards to the War Powers Resolution. Who is right? On whom does the responsibility land? Your guess is as good as mine. Therefore, I choose to look at the intrinsic value, the underlying implications/motives for any particular action. Do I think that The President is signing this treaty to further American ideals? No. Do I think that it will negatively affect our country in the future because it is interpretation and or debate. Yes.

It's better to call it out and try stop it now rather than wait till after its signed, even though Congress is full of freedom-loving individuals that are willing to uphold the Constitution and quickly relieve those who don't.

 

[jbdhere]

uberpeck, Very well said.