Their continuing to push for the US to sign and ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. As I've pointed out previously, this would set a dangerous precedent, in that it will weaken the arguments against our signing on to the Moon Treaty.

This, as Bandow notes, is a typical problem with U.N.-sponsored institutions; they rely heavily on American funding while denying the United States the commensurate amount of power to influence the activities of those institutions.

Seeing as Bush has proved he has liberal leanings on a major scale, this above definition of Socialism should be pretty inviting to George. I hope he wakes up his "conservative" side soon.

Why is the Bush Administration supporting this treaty? I don't get it.

Hi All,

This current drive has been underway since 2003. Some background articles on why the Administration is pushing it and why it’s a bad idea.

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20040504lugar.htm
The Law of the Sea Convention: The Case for Senate Action
Address at the Brookings Institution, May 4, 2004
Richard G. Lugar, U.S. Senator, (R-Ind.)

The CATO Institute fought against it then.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-12-04.html
March 12, 2004

Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty

by Doug Bandow

Yes, like Dracula in the old horror moives old treaties never go away. Senator Jesse Helms killed an attempt to adopt it early in the Clinton Administration. But Senator Lugar brought it back again in 2003.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2004/2004-03-24-02.asp
Law of the Sea Treaty Battle Surfaces in the Senate

This time the Senate not only needs to kill it, but make it clear it doesn’t want to ever hear about it again by passing a law declaring U.S. rights as it did with the Deep Seabed Mining Act of 1981.

9/11 was staged. Where is the Boeing 757-sized hole at the Pentagon? In fact, where is the Boeing 757? - http://i12.tinypic.com/6c7rm6t.jpg

9/11 was staged. Where is the Boeing 757-sized hole at the Pentagon? In fact, where is the Boeing 757? - http://i12.tinypic.com/6c7rm6t.jpg

JD was staged, the 757 was real.

Why when a plane flies into a stone mountain, does it not leave a plane-shaped hole in the mountain?

If you can figure that out JD, you might begin to figure out what happend to a etherial aluminum can full of fuel going 500NMPH when it hits a 4 foot thick Marble wall.

Can the President sign a treaty if Congress hasn't signed off on it? I think not,

Article II Section 2 says in part...

He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

So if this treaty gets passed, it won't have been JUST the President at fault. Not to even consider the fact that the majority party right now is so wrapped up with Iraq war micro-managing and Bush hating that the treaty won't come to the floor of either house until spring of 2009!

parenthetical phrase is mine

Where is the Boeing 757-sized hole at the Pentagon?

There was a three story hole in the side of the pentagon. Last time I checked the diameter of a 757 fuselage was 3.8m.

Steve,

There are two steps to the U.S. becoming party to a treaty. First the President must sign it. Then the Senate must ratify it. Checks and balances...

First the President must sign it. Then the Senate must ratify it. Checks and balances...

Then there's always the Executive Order...

Mac,
I don't think the President can just "Executive Order" a Treaty like this. At least I can find no examples at this time of that ever happening.

the No Name poster made my point, it takes the President and the combined houses of Congress to enter into a treaty. So while the GWB administration might be pushing for this, if it gets passed it will be on the heads of 2/3 of Congress not just "W".

There's a Moon Treaty??

As for the plane shaped hole...perhaps you can chalk that up to too many Roadrunner cartoons.

Of course there's a Moon Treaty, though it may be a bit cheesy...

I don't think the President can just "Executive Order" a Treaty like this. At least I can find no examples at this time of that ever happening.

Clinton found very unique ways to use the Exec Order. I don't think GWB would go that route though.

There are reasons, and good ones, for international control of ocean resources; the main one is that what one country does affects everybody, if it's on a large enough scale.

However, this does not apply to the Moon. It does apply to movable objects such as asteroids; imagine what could happen if someone gets careless (or malign) when changing an asteroid's orbit.

I think that space and ocean resources need to be linked, formally, in any talks.