Will Obama sign the UN Arms Treaty today? Important

[devil21]

Breitbart is reporting that Obama is going to sign the UN Arms Treaty today!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/29/Obama-To-Sign-International-Gun-Control-Treaty-On-June-3rd

Yes, there was an amendment to the Senate budget passed to oppose ratification of this treaty however that budget has NOT been passed and signed into law so the amendment is not law nor official US policy. Remember that treaties only need 2/3 of votes of Senators in attendance when the vote is taken to pass.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Midnight vote coming soon?

[Warlord]

No, the senate needs a quorum so they couldn't just slip something through when they're not there.

quorum - The number of senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.

Whether he signs things like this or not is irrelevant. The exectuive branch is already using its mere existence to harass people i.e Cody Wilson and his computer files.

[devil21]

I didn't say anything about slipping it through with no one in the Senate. I said midnight vote, a la Fed Reserve Act passage. If only 51 are needed for quorum then only 34 Senators must vote for the treaty. 46 voted against the Amendment.

[Warlord]

I didn't say anything about slipping it through with no one in the Senate. I said midnight vote, a la Fed Reserve Act passage. If only 51 are needed for quorum then only 34 Senators must vote for the treaty. 46 voted against the Amendment.

The Minority leader gets all the business well in advance so the chance of them doing it are non-existent.

Plus it takes several days just to table it. You can't just bring something up and get the 2/3rd's. They vote to proceed and need unanimous consent, debate, etc. for days on end. All the senators are there when required.

[devil21]

Trust em, they'll do ya right.

[mad cow]

I hope he signs it and the debate to ratify it takes a while,the closer to the 2014 elections the better,as long as it comes before those elections.
This is one battle that we are slowly winning,State by State,I would love to see Senators having to put themselves on record;Second Amendment versus U.N.

[Zippyjuan]

Today is just the first day the treaty can be signed by any country. The US didn't show up at the initial signing in New York earlier today.

http://theweek.com/article/index/245023/why-the-us-isnt-signing-the-uns-global-arms-treaty



Why the U.S. isn't signing the U.N.'s global arms treaty

Representatives of at least 60 nations are gathering at the United Nations headquarters in New York City on Monday to sign a landmark Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty, passed on April 2 after decades of stop-and-go negotiations, will for the first time regulate some of the multibillion-dollar global arms market. Among those signing will be top-tier arms exporters like Britain, France, and Germany.

Who won't be there? America. Says Flavia Krause-Jackson at Bloomberg News:


The absence of the world's top arms dealer at the ceremony in New York drawing some 60 nations casts a shadow over a decades-long push to stop illegal cross-border shipments of conventional weapons. By contrast, some of the world's most violent nations, from drug-plagued Mexico to the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, will be among the signatories. [Bloomberg]

The U.S. absence doesn't mean the Obama administration won't sign the document. "We are conducting a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty," says White House National Security Council spokeswoman Laura Lucas. In fact, treaty supporters expect the Obama team to sign on sometime later this year. But the treaty won't actually take effect until at least 50 nations ratify it.

That's where the U.S. will probably step on the breaks, at least domestically. The treaty doesn't regulate weapons sales inside the U.S., or any other country, but nobody expects the U.S. Senate to ratify it anytime soon. So what does the treaty do? Its aim, says The Associated Press' Edith M. Lederer, is to "make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders," especially into war-torn countries like South Sudan and Congo.


The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, a country must evaluate whether the weapons would be used to violate international human rights laws or employed by terrorists or organized crime. A country must also determine whether the weapons would contribute to or undermine peace and security. In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. [AP]

Like many things having to do with gun control, the atmosphere in Congress is "absolutely toxic," Amnesty International's Adotei Akwei tells Bloomberg. "Ratification by the U.S. is a long-term strategy and it can take 10 to 15 years." Why not now? Bloomberg's Krause-Jackson explains:


Even if the treaty wouldn't affect U.S. domestic sales or impinge on the constitutional right to bear arms, it would be a political minefield at home. The accord wouldn't muster enough votes for approval by the U.S. Senate, and the influential National Rifle Association, which says it has more than 4.5 million members, has lobbied against it. [Bloomberg]