Obama To Sign The UN Arms Trade Treaty June 3.

[MikeBjerum]

The article mentions that he can sign in the future, but today was the day to make political hay off the big show.  Of course Bloomberg is unhappy, but I still think it is 50/50 as to what BHO does with it in the next six months (I think that is the open period).  Our biggest promise is that we are within a year of the major campaigns of 2014.

[TAB]

i hontestly can't see him signing it until after the election.   

[MikeBjerum]

That TAB is the hope we have.  The window to sign ends a year before the election.  Either he takes his chances and signs it, or it goes through without the US.

[twyacht]

Well BHO is faced with yet another Executive decision, another event to make His agenda move forward, another slogan from his campaign that he is forced to actually make a clear and concise DECISION!!!!!

So when is his tee-time?

Harry Reid, as Dem Majority Leader, does not need a Constitutional Amend. to change the vote to a simple majority. It is a "procedural rule" that Dem leaders cry about when they don't have the Majority. However the number of Senators up for re-election is 2014 matters too much....Dems in Red States are in jeopardy, and Reid knows it.

So it may very well be "tabled" until after 2014....Holding the Senate means everything to Dems right now...I doubt in light of recent events, we'll see ol' Nancy Pelosi back as SOTH. She cannot get that gavel back.

[fightingquaker13]

Wrong TW. A 2/3 majority for approval of a treaty is a Constitutional requirement. And thank God and James Madison for that.

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

C'mon FQ, don't you remember the "nuclear option" it only works one way,...unless the Dems really need it...

Senate Republicans are charging Democrats with embracing the “nuclear option” in their move to alter the filibuster.

Stepping up their defense of the parliamentary maneuver and looking to claim the political high ground, Republicans are attempting to brand Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) effort with the same rhetoric Democrats used in 2005, when the then-majority GOP Conference threatened to change the rules. It was an attempt to prevent Democrats from filibustering President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, and at the time, Republicans defended the effort by calling it the “constitutional option.”

“It’s exactly the same move,” said a senior Republican Senate aide, who added that the “nuclear option is a radical” departure from regular order.

Reid has vowed to do away with filibusters on procedural votes if Democrats hold the majority in the November elections. Senate Republicans oppose the idea, and in particular they take issue with Reid’s threat to change the rule through a majority vote of just 51 Senators. Changes to the Senate rules typically occur on a two-thirds, or 67-vote, threshold, but the chamber’s rules allow for changes to be made with the consent of 51 Members if those changes are voted on at the beginning of the Congressional session.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_9/Harry-Reid-Ready-to-Alter-Filibuster-Rules-216330-1.html

******

For every "rule", there is an "exception" don't you get it yet? This is the United States Gov't......Don't sound like Juan Williams...
Dirty Harry has a tremendous amount of power, that both Rep's and Dems have "tweaked" depending on the majority...

OBTW,  it was Bush's fault....Oh wait it was Clinton's fault,....oh wait it was Nixon,...yeah he's a rat bastard,.....oh wait perhaps the Carter admin did the same....

[fightingquaker13]

TW the filibuster is a rule. We're not talking about that. Article Two of the US Constitution specifies that the President may enter into treaties with the "advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate". Period, full stop. There is no way of getting around that without amending the Constitution. So Harry Reid's opinion, or for that matter yours or mine means nothing. You have a 2/3 vote or you don't. If you don't its dead.

[twyacht]

UPDATE:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/06/03/Obama-sneaks-arms-trade-treaty

In an attempt to avoid public scrutiny, President Obama plans to sign the controversial United Nations gun treaty in August, when Congress is in summer recess. According to White House press secretary Jay Carney, Obama will sign the treaty “before the end of August,” even though legally he could have done so next week.

Now, it appears that the White House wants the benefit of being on the record with regard to the treaty, but does not want the fallout of a public battle over the treaty before the 2014 elections, especially given the fact that the treaty will not be ratified in the Senate.

“We believe it’s in the interest of the United States,” Carney said of signing the treaty. “While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”

While President Obama wants to delay the treaty for political reasons, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly wants it signed as soon as possible. “The United States welcomes the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty for signature and we look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.”

*****

Your right FQ, I was confuzed . Art. 2 Sec 2, Seems Hamilton was the presiding voice, as conveyed in Federalist Papers 75

But given Harry Reid's shuck & jive history as Majority Leader,,,,, put it this way, if Harry Reid was playing a high stakes poker game in the Old West, he'd be dragged out of town on his own horse.