The whole idea behind an international treaty is that they have the subject of the treaty in mind ....NOT the best interest of ONE side but of all involved as a whole.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > It would be madness to allow Obama or any President to commit the US > to the Kyoto treaty on his own. Treaties such as this surrender our > sovereignty to outside entities which seldom evidence that they have > our best interest in mind. Mostly the opposite, in fact. > > On Jul 10, 4:51 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 - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
