The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Frosty on October 16, 2013, 01:46:00 PM

Title: Senate Decisively Rejects U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
Post by: Frosty on October 16, 2013, 01:46:00 PM

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/15/senate-decisively-rejects-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-2/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/15/senate-decisively-rejects-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-2/)

Title: Re: Senate Decisively Rejects U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
Post by: Solus on October 16, 2013, 02:51:53 PM

Reading the objections to the treaty listed in the letter, you would think the next step would be to charge anyone involved in signing it with treason.

Title: Re: Senate Decisively Rejects U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
Post by: kmitch200 on October 16, 2013, 04:26:03 PM

The State Department accepts under the customary international law of treaties that the U.S. is bound not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed but unratified treaty.

Does the prick living in public housing at 1600 Pennsylvania know that being elected "Prez" isn't the same as "King"?

Title: Re: Senate Decisively Rejects U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
Post by: jnevis on October 17, 2013, 08:07:48 AM

Quote from: kmitch200 on October 16, 2013, 04:26:03 PM

The State Department accepts under the customary international law of treaties that the U.S. is bound not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed but unratified treaty.

Does the prick living in public housing at 1600 Pennsylvania know that being elected "Prez" isn't the same as "King"?

That is precedent for at least 50 years, nothing specific to BHO, but Kerry signing the Treaty was just a photo op right?