KIT, You are, of course, absolutely correct in this case.
On Jul 13, 10:50 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-Hidequoted 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
