Anthony Martin
Conservative Examiner
7/9/2012
Upon the advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama has confirmed his intention to sign two controversial U.N. treaties — the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the so called “small arms” treaty.
Although many citizens and elected representatives are sounding the alarm about the small arms treaty, such as this entry Sunday at the Daily Paul, some political observers note that the treaty is unlikely to pass the Senate. But a very different scenario is developing for the Law of the Sea.
Twenty Republican senators are set to join with Democrats in upholding LOST.
In a breaking update, two of the 20 Republican senators have now indicated they will oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. One political activist stated that it is important for citizens to call the offices of all 20 to make sure those Senators are on the record with their intent to vote against the treaty. McConnell and Toomey now state they will vote no. [emphasis CAJ]
The U.S. Constitution grants authority to presidents to enter into treaty agreements with other nations and entities. But due to the fact that a treaty, if approved, becomes the law of the land, the U.S. Senate must approve by an exact two-thirds majority rather than the simple supermajority of 60 votes. This means that 67 votes are needed in the Senate to approve a treaty.
Most political observers believe that all 53 Democrats in the Senate will vote to approve LOST. And if the 20 Republicans who have failed to indicate opposition to the treaty hold firm, the Senate will have more than the required 67 votes to pass…
The article continues at the Conservative Examiner.
…One of the stars of the class of 2010, Sen. Mike Lee (elections are important, could you see Bob Bennett doing this?), raked Sec. of State Clinton over the coals. According the release:
Clinton came off as flustered and ill-informed, as it became clear to even the casual observer that the freshman Utah Republican had delved quite deeply into the treaty and its sovereignty implications, while she was captive to her talking points.
What we can gather from this is that the people in the Obama administration, and likely its proponents in Congress and elsewhere, cannot present an intellectually coherent case for its ratification without admitting the obvious: this treaty weakens and redistributes the United States’ sovereignty. What they are saying and what the treaty actually will do are two different things… [emphasis CAJ]
