On June 3, President Barack Obama will sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)

Procedural question:

Let us hope that the Senate doesn't ratify it. Obama's term runs out at the end of 2016. If the Senate were to reconsider the treaty in ... say ... 2018, would the new President have to sign the treaty again, or does Obama's signature on it outlive his presidency?
 
Being as most gun control votes are along party lines (if you classify this as a gun control issue), and it takes 2/3 majority of the Senate to ratify it, my guess is it won't pass.
 
Since the enhanced background check got nowhere I'd expect the same on ratification of the UN treaty.
 
I doubt this would pass the Senate at any point. Given the amount of outrage the general public voiced at S. 649, I really don't see them being too eager to pass it now.
 
I doubt this would pass the Senate ...
Click to expand...
However....

I would expect this Admin to begin implementing some of its provisions as might
further its gun control aims... letting the courts settle out authorities/jurisdictions...

... in the next several years.
 
If they did that, they'd be, like, so totally violating the Constitution. That would be, like, so lame.
 
Last edited:
Read the following on the current legal thinking on signed -- but unratified -- treaties.

> Nevertheless, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
> which many commentators regard as reflecting customary international
> law, provides that when a nation signs a treaty it is obligated to refrain
> from actions that would defeat the “object and purpose” of the treaty until
> such time as it makes clear its intent not to become a party to the treaty.
> Some commentators further claim that this object and purpose obligation
> means that a nation that has signed a treaty is prohibited either from
> violating the treaty altogether or from violating the treaty's “core” or
> “important” provisions.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2517&context=faculty_scholarship

That is a legal "loopholus intrepretus" which this particular DOJ could/would drive a truck through.
 
I recall reading that Clinton tried to implement a treaty through Executive Orders instead of submitting it to the Senate.
 
I recall reading that Clinton tried to implement a treaty through Executive Orders instead of submitting it to the Senate.
Click to expand...
I don't know how that would work. The whole concept of EO's is pretty murky, but the courts have denied past Presidents the authority to make law with them. The whole idea is looked upon as a little suspicious at best and quite abusive at worst.

If a President were to step over the line with one, I imagine it would trigger a very close reexamination of the whole concept and legality of EO's.
 
I don't know how that would work. The whole concept of EO's is pretty murky, but the courts have denied past Presidents the authority to make law with them. The whole idea is looked upon as a little suspicious at best and quite abusive at worst.
Click to expand...

Laws are passed by Congress and sign by the President but implemented by the executive branch. This is normally done at the Agency or Department level, but some implementation is done via the President via EOs. If you look at most laws at some point in them some agency of the Government is tasked to make regulations etc. so the law can take effect.

The way treaties, unratified, plays into this is the President will try and have any regulations or orders meet both the law passed by Congress and the treaty signed by him or her. It depends on the law, some have a lot of wiggle room and there is no conflict. If there is conflict then the law overrides the unratified treaty, but this may have to be established via lawsuit.
 
Tom Servo said:
I don't know how that would work. The whole concept of EO's is pretty murky, but the courts have denied past Presidents the authority to make law with them. The whole idea is looked upon as a little suspicious at best and quite abusive at worst.

If a President were to step over the line with one, I imagine it would trigger a very close reexamination of the whole concept and legality of EO's.
Click to expand...

After seeing that all it took was an EO to lock up hundreds of thousands of American citizens in internment camps, im not about to so easily shake off what an EO is capable of.
 
Might make for an interesting presentation at SCOTUS vis a vis whether such a thing as "international law" outside of negotiated and ratified treaties even exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top