Sources: US to sign UN gay rights declaration

[LiberalNation]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_gay_rights;_ylt=AvF_E70OTEIdgL_DJrl4sQ534T0D

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

[DannyR]

Doesn't Congress have to ratify any such international agreement before it is considered binding to the US?

[CockySOB]

Doesn't Congress have to ratify any such international agreement before it is considered binding to the US?

The Senate would have to ratify any treaty.

[sgtdmski]

Is this any surprise? Remember Obama said that he would review and if he could change the military policy on gays.

I just wonder what they are going to say when signing this treaty causes the federal government to change its policies in other areas concerning gays and such? And how long before the federal government is putting pressure on the states.

I mean on something like this how is it that legal opinion could change so rapidly. I can see the issue with the current administration being one that puts a lot of pressure on the Congress. This will be interesting to see. Advice and consent, and a mere 41 Senators can determine whether not this ever sees the light of day in the Senate.

dmk

[avatar4321]

some leadership on this issue. Let's just follow everyone else instead of you know, looking to see if its a good idea.

[sgtdmski]

You know the deal the UN is always right. What's next? The UN Handgun ban??

dmk

[Noir]

The Senate would have to ratify any treaty.

True the Senate must ratify treaties, however, hey do not have to ratify presidential agreements (just treaties by another name) so if this is a treaty then the Senate will have a say, if its an agreement then they will not.

[CockySOB]

True the Senate must ratify treaties, however, hey do not have to ratify presidential agreements (just treaties by another name) so if this is a treaty then the Senate will have a say, if its an agreement then they will not.

Such "agreements" have no force of law though, rendering the issue moot.

[Trigg]

It's a non-binding document. So really, does it matter who signs it?????????



The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality

Personnally I'd think a worldwide halt on genocide would be a more pressing matter. I'm sure the people in Darfur and the Sudan give a rats ass if the world gets together on homosexuality.

[Noir]

Such "agreements" have no force of law though, rendering the issue moot.

Oh, we are being taught in politics at the moment that they are, both presidential agreements and Orders bypass congress, and have been used increasingly in the past few decades to push through laws & treaties, a recent example would be Obama closing Gitmo by a presidential order, no congress needed, he used the argument of his popular manifesto to justify using the order.

Unless we are being taught wrongly.

[CockySOB]

Oh, we are being taught in politics at the moment that they are, both presidential agreements and Orders bypass congress, and have been used increasingly in the past few decades to push through laws & treaties, a recent example would be Obama closing Gitmo by a presidential order, no congress needed, he used the argument of his popular manifesto to justify using the order.

Unless we are being taught wrongly.

Um, Presidential signing statements are administrative orders from the head of the Executive Branch to the rest of hte Executive Branch which specify the priorities that POTUS wants the offices of the Executive enforce. No signing statements are enforceable if they contravene the Constitution or federal law, period.

So yes, you might be receiving incorrect information if you are being taught that Presidential signing statements and Executive Orders have any force of law.

[Mr. P]

It's a non-binding document. So really, does it matter who signs it?????????




Personnally I'd think a worldwide halt on genocide would be a more pressing matter. I'm sure the people in Darfur and the Sudan give a rats ass if the world gets together on homosexuality.

Thanks! I was looking for someone to post the obvious.

This is no more than another political feel good move by Bambam directed at gays this time. It would mean nothing in reality.

[darin]

Absolute right. Homosexual behavior should not be a crime. Those folks should get the mental help they need to fix their inclinations. Poor folk. :(

[Silver]

Bush probably should have signed it long ago...there is no good reason to treat this mental illness as criminal....

[Silver]

Damn...you beat me by seconds....:laugh2:

[DannyR]

Oh, we are being taught in politics at the moment that they are, both presidential agreements and Orders bypass congress, and have been used increasingly in the past few decades to push through laws & treaties, a recent example would be Obama closing Gitmo by a presidential order, no congress needed, he used the argument of his popular manifesto to justify using the order.Gitmo is a military base. The President is CinC. The President is also the highest enforcer of the law and directed the use of Gitmo in the first place, so Obama's order is just a reversal of a previous such order. Under either authority he's perfectly in his rights to close Gitmo. Its an internal matter completely within the power of the Executive branch.

Now if Congress specifically passes a law mandating Gitmo as the place where enemy combatants should be held, then we have a different story. Then the President can't just order it closed.

[darin]

The President is also the highest enforcer of the law ?????

Where'd you get that idea? I thought it was the SC.

[Mr. P]

?????

Where'd you get that idea? I thought it was the SC.

Tis, I was gonna say the same thing...

[Yurt]

the executive branch enforces the law...legislative creates it, judicial interprets it...that is the theory anyways

[Mr. P]

the executive branch enforces the law...legislative creates it, judicial interprets it...that is the theory anyways

Wrong. If the Executive "enforced" law there would be no need for the judicial. Which branch holds hearings and passes judgment? :poke:

[Yurt]

Wrong. If the Executive "enforced" law there would be no need for the judicial. Which branch holds hearings and passes judgment? :poke:

what branch is in charge of police....and arresting folks...congress...courts...nope, the executive branch...you to prison...executive branch in charge

the executive branch administers and enforces the laws of this country, sorry...not sure why you think differently

[Yurt]

better tell the whitehouse to change its website then....

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/executive_branch/

[Yurt]

tell me how the supreme court forced alabama to integrate its schools...alabama ignored the supreme court ruling...who enforced that ruling?

[Kathianne]

Wrong. If the Executive "enforced" law there would be no need for the judicial. Which branch holds hearings and passes judgment? :poke:

Yurt's right. The judicial interprets the law, executive, 'executes' carries out, policies the law. It's why justice, homeland, military, falls under that branch. They 'carry out' the laws Congress makes.

You knew this though...

[Missileman]

Wrong. If the Executive "enforced" law there would be no need for the judicial. Which branch holds hearings and passes judgment? :poke:

Yurt is correct...the executive branch executes(enforces) the law.