Forums / Political & Legal / LET'S GET PRACTICAL----RE THE UN SMALL ARMS TREATY

Long abandoned in the District of Communism.

SCAREY STUFF: There are some pundits who believe that because the USA is a signitory to the 1969 Vienna Convention onThe Law of International Treaties, THAT has already pre-empted our cherished Second Amendment. In order for that tortured logic to be valid, you would have to believe that our ENTIRE Constitution was pre-empted, including the provisions that require a Senate ratification vote after the Senate Foreign Relations committee recommends that the treaty is NOT violative of our laws.

IF Clinton does sign off on 7/27/12, she must do so [as provided for in the Vienna Convention] on the basis that her signiture is CONTINGENT upon ratification by the Senate, or she will have violated Federal law and be subject to potentially severe penalties.
THAT would fit very well with the recent behavior we have been treated to, from the high level Obama dead-end gang bangers, like the Attorney General, and the seemingly mentally- challenged senate majority leader.
FEAR NOT: IN GOD, WE TRUST

No Comment

Yes but...clinton signs,obama is re...re....lect...man fuck it.check out dick morris.

And Dick Morris

According to Morris if the treaty is signed, but not brought up for a vote in the senate and not renounced by the prez, then it has the force of law. He says that's what they plan to do since they won't be able to get it through the senate.

Thanks vaq

BTW. ALL of my representatives have heard from me. How about the rest of y'all?
Yep, I did the polls, the NRA questionaires, etc. etc.........
But the Senators and my Congressman have heard from me personally. If they fail, I take it personally.

This crap is beyond humorous or annoying.

I found a signature line on another forum, it reads,
"Our forefathers would already be shooting"

Think about it.

READ the Vienna Convention document language. [sometimes called the treaty for all treaties]. If the USA signer does not comply with the terms of the Vienna Convention treaty, her signiture will be a violation of that treaty. It is known, internationally, that the US Senate MUST ratify, before the terms of a new treaty can be implemented. If she signs, without proof of the Senate ratification, she is, in fact, commiting perjury on behalf of herself AND the USA, and she will have violated federal regulations.

that dick morris is flat wrong.

from the state department website

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?

No. The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.

I obviously neglected to recognize that fact. Thus, technically, the question of a Clinton signiture begs the question of whether the USA's assent should even be sought after. Acceptance of a USA assent [under those conditions], would represent a violation of the Vienna Convention. And, the participating U S Exective Branch officials complicit in the process, probably could be cited for violation of federal law.