As much as I hate to admit it, Holly is correct on this one. The list is endless.....We could start by the thousands of U.N. Resolutions which both Israel and the United States have ignored; (Resolution 242 and 343 being the most glaring examples!!); and Mark loves to bring up those little U.N. ditties from the early to mid 1980s centering around Nicaragua....About ten years ago, we pretty much told the U.N. to stick it when it came to the World Court and the potential prosecution of American servicemen, (I forget the actual resolution number)
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Such as? > > On Jul 12, 10:28 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > chiro, > > > > Oh please, we happily ignore any U.N. resolution we find inconvient. > > > > On Jul 12, 9:25 am, chirpinginnc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The Iraq war. There was no resolution to use force as is REQUIRED. > > > -------------------------- > > > Wrong. Why do people continue to repeat this lie years later when > > > they've been provided with the resolution again and again? Do they > > > think that if they say it often enough it will become true? > > > > > On Jul 6, 4:14 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The Iraq war. There was no resolution to use force as is REQUIRED. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM, dick thompson < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Examples?? And don't try to pull Kyoto because that was never > approved by > > > > > the Senate and the last Geneva Accord was not approved either. > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > Bush did not implement treaties he broke them without Congressional > > > > > approval. > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 11:55 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > How is this like what Bush did. Bush did not implement a treaty > without > > > > > the approval of the Senate first. That is what Obama is trying to > do. > > > > > Suppose he implements it and the Senate votes it down. Then what > happens. > > > > > > > Frederick The Moderate wrote: > > > > > > > It seems the Dems are now doing exactly what Bush did - except it's > > > > > the GOP who's compaining this time. Now if Obama starts telling us > how > > > > > "We absolutely must do this right away or they will blow us all up > > > > > with WMDs!", he will have completed his journey to the Dark Side of > > > > > the Force. > > > > > > > I don't like the smell of it but will wait to see if they actually > try > > > > > it, before getting to rattled... > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 9:14 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > [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...> > <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...> > <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...> > <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/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578<http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>> > <http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>- Hide > quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com-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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
