UN Arms Trade Treaty - Letter from Donnelly

[cmstuard]

Hope this isn't a dup, but a friend sent me the Donnelly boilerplate letter regarding the UN Arms Trade Treaty. The letter reads as if he is clearly against it and then in the third paragraph he leaves the door open..."I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind." I just don't get politicians.

 

[Birds Away]

In other words, I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind but, if my party needs my vote....well, sorry about that.

 

[afcolt]

I wrote him a fairly detailed letter expressing my concerns and misgivings regarding the treaty. I’m betting I’ll get the same form letter sometime in the next couple weeks, but we’ll see!

 

[CathyInBlue]

I propose a Constitutional amendment.

It's well known that the American federal executive branch likes to sign foreign treaties and then pretend that that is sufficient to obligate the nation to the treaty's precepts while refusing to send the treaty to the Senate for ratification per the existing Constitution. The chief executive will sometimes delay this process for years while waiting for an election cycle to bring a favourable batch of legislators into office to insure ratification.

My proposal is to short circuit such a tactic by ending it with an implied affirmative rejection/veto of such treaties.

All treaties signed by the executive branch and/or its officers must be submitted to, debated, and voted upon definitively by the Senate no later than 100 days after the date of its receipt of an executive signature. That 100 days includes the days of signing and voting. Kerry signed the ATT on Sept 25. That means on Dec. 3, if the Senate has not affirmatively ratified the ATT, it will be as if they had affirmatively vetoed it and all politicians would have absolutely no basis on which to claim it had any force whatsoever.

 

[Expat]

He was firmly against Obamacare until the party bosses informed him he was for it...

 

[Birds Away]

Where do the unions stand on this? That's where Joe will be.

 

[Expat]

Where do the unions stand on this? That's where Joe will be.

Membership or Leadership? The working unions (non public sector) members would be against it. Their leaders though will be for whatever the DNC tells them to be, like with Obamacare. The public sector unions will support it, would be my guess.

 

[chraland51]

Donnelly is a lizzard just like all of the others that go to Washington. Notice that I did not say that we elected and we send to Washington as I am not 100% sure that all of the close elections are free from cheating. I really hope that the next idiot that the repukelicans put up for the senate knows enough to keep his mouth shut about rape and abortion. There might be some, but I can not think of one national election that was won by a repukelican when I came down to a recount of votes since the Bush-Gore presidential election of 2000. I also an very curious about what the reaction of the country will be should UN supported troops go to the doors of the American people demanding that we turn over our legally acquired firearms. Don't laugh or think me to be a paranoid idiot as it really could eventually come down to that with people in office like the present regime.

 

[yepthatsme]

I propose a Constitutional amendment.

It's well known that the American federal executive branch likes to sign foreign treaties and then pretend that that is sufficient to obligate the nation to the treaty's precepts while refusing to send the treaty to the Senate for ratification per the existing Constitution. The chief executive will sometimes delay this process for years while waiting for an election cycle to bring a favourable batch of legislators into office to insure ratification.

My proposal is to short circuit such a tactic by ending it with an implied affirmative rejection/veto of such treaties.

All treaties signed by the executive branch and/or its officers must be submitted to, debated, and voted upon definitively by the Senate no later than 100 days after the date of its receipt of an executive signature. That 100 days includes the days of signing and voting. Kerry signed the ATT on Sept 25. That means on Dec. 3, if the Senate has not affirmatively ratified the ATT, it will be as if they had affirmatively vetoed it and all politicians would have absolutely no basis on which to claim it had any force whatsoever.

I like your idea, but it makes me wonder, why should he be able to sign a treaty before ratification? Mandate that all treaties must be ratified first, then give the president permission to sign the treaty. Most of the time there is no urgency to sign a treaty, so why should he have the power to sign one before congress and the people can study it? Just my

 

[24Carat]

I think everyone would get a warm and fuzzy if they received a thoughtful, personal response from a representative. Some form letters even impart that, to a certain degree and one needs to ask themselves if it is a form letter (sure it is).

Joe's letters are an insult to form letters everywhere.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I got one, once. Believe it or not, it was from Evan Bayh, whom I'd written asking him to stand against some form of "gun control". Some staffer in his office either wrote or sent me a form letter telling me how he'd "always stood for Hoosiers' Second Amendment rights" (paraquote)
I wrote back, calling him on this lie, and detailed his voting record to support my statement.

I received back a letter saying, "I'm sorry you didn't like my letter...." and it went on to reiterate that he'd stand for our rights (or "keep my thoughts in mind" or some such.)

I didn't bother to respond, but the fact that the letter I got specifically addressed a point I raised about his lie seems to indicate that at least my letter was read.

Then again, it could also be that he lied so much, he did have a boilerplate to address the subject.

Blessings,
Bill

I think everyone would get a warm and fuzzy if they received a thoughtful, personal response from a representative. Some form letters even impart that, to a certain degree and one needs to ask themselves if it is a form letter (sure it is).

Joe's letters are an insult to form letters everywhere.

 

[Jerchap2]

I know this is sort of old news. But with the signing of the treaty it may be worth a reminder to all the INGOers who do not live in Indiana of the Senators who voted to give our 2A rights to the UN in violation of the Constitution, and who need to be defeated in 2014 or 2016.

Truth or fiction states:


The Truth:

It is true that 46 Democratic Senators voted against Amendment 139 on the Senate Floor on March 23, 2013?

The statement of purpose on the Amendment said, "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." This according to the official website of the U.S. Senate
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote.

The Amendment passed by a narrow margin 53 to 46 with one member not voting.

The senators who casted votes against this measure were:

NAYs ---46
Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY)	Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL)	Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

As for the charge of treason, that is for each American to decide. What is clearly evident by this vote is that the 46 Senators failed do to something which they all took an oath to do. And that is to support and defend the Constitution.



​

 

[erice1984]

I know this is sort of old news. But with the signing of the treaty it may be worth a reminder to all the INGOers who do not live in Indiana of the Senators who voted to give our 2A rights to the UN in violation of the Constitution, and who need to be defeated in 2014 or 2016.

Truth or fiction states:


The Truth:

It is true that 46 Democratic Senators voted against Amendment 139 on the Senate Floor on March 23, 2013?

The statement of purpose on the Amendment said, "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." This according to the official website of the U.S. Senate
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote.

The Amendment passed by a narrow margin 53 to 46 with one member not voting.

The senators who casted votes against this measure were:

NAYs ---46
Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY)	Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL)	Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

As for the charge of treason, that is for each American to decide. What is clearly evident by this vote is that the 46 Senators failed do to something which they all took an oath to do. And that is to support and defend the Constitution.



​

That makes me sick.

 

[Expat]

When you look through that list, there are some states represented that surprise me a bit.

 

[Bill of Rights]

When you look through that list, there are some states represented that surprise me a bit.

Where the name of the state surprises you, the letter preceding it should provide all necessary explanation. That's not to say all "D"s are anti-freedom/anti-rights, as they aren't, any more than all "R"s are pro-freedom and/or pro-rights. What it does say is that if someone is anti-rights, specifically anti-gun rights, that person is more likely to be elected on the Democratic Party ticket than the Republican.

To avoid arguments on the above point, I'll also add that likelihoods are not absolutes.

Blessings,
Bill