• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Un small arms treaty March 2013

self preservation

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
I have posted this on a few different threads but can't seem to get much conversation about it going. We all know that they are meeting now (3/13) in NY to discuss this. It is my understanding that this treaty had been "killed" and has no chance of ever coming back. Am I celebrating to soon or am I overlooking/misunderstanding something?
 
hotrod

hotrod

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
569
Location
Union, Kentucky, USA
self preservation said:
I have posted this on a few different threads but can't seem to get much conversation about it going. We all know that they are meeting now (3/13) in NY to discuss this. It is my understanding that this treaty had been "killed" and has no chance of ever coming back. Am I celebrating to soon or am I overlooking/misunderstanding something?
Click to expand...

It does not matter what is voted on in the UN, if it is not ratified by the Senate and the House it's just wasted paper, and it would never be ratified.

 
K

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
hotrod said:


It does not matter what is voted on in the UN, if it is not ratified by the Senate and the House it's just wasted paper, and it would never be ratified.
Click to expand...

Only the Senate would have to ratify such a treaty for it to be binding in America. The House has nothing to do with treaties, only the Senate.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
KYGlockster said:
Only the Senate would have to ratify such a treaty for it to be binding in America. The House has nothing to do with treaties, only the Senate.
Click to expand...

The 17th amendment is more insidious than I realized, this makes central control more easier this way, because they still use the constitutional provision you just provided which was originally meant to make sure the states, the ones who formed the union, had an ability to nullify federal law .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top