Richard, OK, in that respect I will have to agree with you. If there is a way to circumvent the intent of the Constituion and/or Bill Of Rights some politician will find it in such a matter asa to be able to insist he obeyed the "letter of the law".
Of course he didn't, thanks to President Bush. On Jul 10, 3:51 pm, RICHARD BROWN <[email protected]> wrote: > Hollywood, it has zip to do with your question posed to Travis. I was > pointing out that all of our politicians do the same thing when using > executive power. They find ways around the other branches of > government. It is part of the power game that they all play. > If Obama can commit the U.S. to in effect go along with the Kyoto > Treaty without actually getting the Senate to approve it, he will. > Politicians are very adroit at doing an end run around the opposition > or side stepping the rules and regulations to get what they want. > Did Obama go to Congress to get a declaration of war in Afghanistan > before he sent an additional 30,000 troops there, or before he used > drones to bomb Pakistan? > > On Jul 10, 1:41 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Richard, > > > What has that to do with the question I posed to Travis concerning > > treaties? > > > On Jul 10, 3:04 pm, RICHARD BROWN <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Did the President of the United States get a UN Resolution to use > > > force, or did he get permission from the U.S. Congress to use force > > > when we invaded Kosovo? Did we have an exit strategy? Do we plan on > > > letting them become self-governing? > > > > On Jul 7, 9:26 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Travis, > > > > > Tell us how many times this has happened in our entire history. > > > > > On Jul 7, 11:22 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Dick: Do you know how many senators it actually takes to approve a > > > > > treaty? > > > > > > Didn't think so. Try TWO (2). > > > > > > That is all. One (1) to preside over the senate and one (1) to vote > > > > > yes. > > > > > > That one (1) vote YES is two-thirds (2/3) of the senators present > > > > > (1) and > > > > > voting (again 1). > > > > > > This was a grave mistake the founding fathers made when they did not > > > > > make > > > > > the vote a required two-thirds (2/3) of the senate. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, dick thompson > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Sounds right to me. I don't see where the president can just make > > > > > > the > > > > > > treaty without the consent of the US Senate. If I remember right > > > > > > it takes > > > > > > both of them to approve the treaties. It is not really a done deal > > > > > > if the > > > > > > president signs it unless the senate also approves it. Guess they > > > > > > forgot > > > > > > that one. Of course they also tried to forget that when it came to > > > > > > Kyoto > > > > > > for a while as the Dems tried to force the US to implement a treaty > > > > > > that the > > > > > > Senate never ratified. Looks like another one coming along. > > > > > > > *The Constitution Imposes Severe Limits On A President's > > > > > > Treaty-Making > > > > > > Powers: * Here's the relevant > > > > > > section<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am...>: > > > > > > > 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; > > > > > > > The Obama administration is finding that limitation > > > > > > inconvenient<http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat...>, > > > > > > and so they are thinking of "temporarily > > > > > > bypassing"<http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot...>the > > > > > > Senate. Not on any important matter, just a little agreement > > > > > > with the > > > > > > Russians on limiting nuclear arms. > > > > > > > I looked carefully through the Constitution, and could not find any > > > > > > provision that allows a president to bypass, temporarily or > > > > > > otherwise, that > > > > > > limit on his treaty-making powers. > > > > > > > Senator Byrd — among others — isn't going to like this one little > > > > > > bit. > > > > > > - 8:08 AM, 6 July 2009 > > > > > > [link]<http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578> > > > > > > -- > > > > > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
