Canada holds off on signing arms treaty
It wants to study its effect on Canadian gun owners. That seems to be more than the U.S. did before signing. Of course, an unratified treaty isn't legally binding, or empowering, and I rather doubt this is going to be ratified. I also doubt that the major arms exporters to civil wars, genocidal governments, etc., are going to sign on, let alone follow it. When was the last time you saw their followers toting M-16s? AKs, yes, M-16s no.
"When was the last time you saw their followers toting M-16s? AKs, yes, M-16s no."
The last time I watched the news from Africa (Liberia) or Palestine (HAMAS) or Afghanistan (CQM311s by Taliban and Northern Alliance).
Posted by: Shootin' Buddy at September 26, 2013 11:47 AM
The Constitution always places the treaty making power in the hands of the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President cannot redelegate that which was delegated to him from the sovereign People. Delegata potestes non potest delegari.
So Kerry can't do nuthin even if BO says do it. And any and every treaty ever signed by a rep of the Pres is also invalid. AND no treaty can be made except on the Authority of the United States and that authority is nothing more than the delegated powers found in the Constitution. Thus a treaty which would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms would not be within the authority of the United States to sign.
Posted by: fwb at September 26, 2013 02:23 PM
Okay not a lawyer or even close - I have read somewhere that supposedly once it is signed a later president can present it to a more sympathetic congress to get it passed. Can that happen or is there some death it dies never to be resurrected?
Posted by: Rich at September 26, 2013 03:35 PM
I'm not an expert on the Canadian government, but Harper may have had to make a stand if he felt Parliament would approve it and he opposes it.
Posted by: Matthew Carberry at September 26, 2013 05:46 PM
Just as with any legislation, treaties can be presented for advice and consent as often as those in power want. So even though a current senate says no, a later senate can approve.
AND most folks think it takes 2/3 of the senate to approve a treaty but that is not the case. The actual text of the Constitution says 2/3 of those present. Theoretically 3 senators could be present and 2 approve to meet the Constitutional requirements of 2/3 of those present to allow a treaty.
Posted by: fwb at September 27, 2013 08:14 AM
There are precedents, perhaps the most recent being V.P. Gore signing Kyoto One.
Posted by: John A at September 28, 2013 04:16 PM