Bush Accepts Bolton's U.N. Resignation

Paladin · Post by **Paladin** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:37 pm

Bolton was awesome on the 2nd amendment. Seemed like he was the right guy to shake up the UN. Will miss him.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/04/D8LQ4L080.html

"Bush Accepts Bolton's U.N. Resignation
Dec 04 11:18 AM US/Eastern

By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON

Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

Bolton's nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections Nov. 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton.

Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective public servant who could help bring reform to the U.N.

President Bush, in a statement, said he was "deeply disappointed that a handful of United States senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate."

"They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time," Bush said. "This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation."

Bush gave Bolton the job temporarily in August 2005, while Congress was in recess. Under that process, the appointment expires when Congress formally adjourns, no later than early January.

The White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination last month. But with Democrats capturing control of the next Congress, his chances of winning confirmation appeared slight. The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said he saw "no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again."

While Bush could not give Bolton another recess appointment, the White House was believed to be exploring other ways of keeping him in the job, perhaps by giving him a title other than ambassador. But Bolton informed the White House he intended to leave when his current appointment expires, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

Bush planned to meet with Bolton and his wife later Monday in the Oval Office.

Bush said he accepted Bolton's decision with deep regret.

"He served his country with extraordinary dedication and skill, assembling coalitions that addressed some of the most consequential issues facing the international community," the president said. "During his tenure, he articulately advocated the positions and values of the United States and advanced the expansion of democracy and liberty.

"Ambassador Bolton led the successful negotiations that resulted in unanimous Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea's military and nuclear activities. He built consensus among our allies on the need for Iran to suspend the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium," Bush added. "His efforts to promote the cause of peace in Darfur resulted in a peacekeeping commitment by the United Nations. He made the case for United Nations reform because he cares about the institution, and wants it to become more credible and effective."

Bolton, who pushed strongly for U.N. reform, has had strained relations with many in the U.N. Secretariat, led by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and has repeatedly called for all top U.N. officials to leave when Annan steps down as U.N. chief on Dec. 31 and is replaced by Ban Ki-moon.

"I think Ambassador Bolton did the job he was expected to do," Annan said Monday morning when asked about Bolton's resignation. "He came at a time when we had lots of tough issues from reform to issues on Iran and North Korea. I think as a representative of the U.S, givenment, he pressed ahead with the instructions he had been given and tried to work as effectively as he could."

As late as last month, Bush, through his top aides, said he would not relent in his defense of Bolton, despite unwavering opposition from Democrats who view Bolton as too combative for international diplomacy. "

AV8R · Post by **AV8R** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:23 pm

I admire Bolton's efforts to address the institutional corruption which pervades every aspect of the United Nations. The Democrats, however, may see that as striking a little too close to home for their comfort. Regrettably, George Mitchell will likely seek a return to "status quo" in the UN.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:34 pm

Well of course we all know now that we need to be a little more vigilant now that he's out of here...

He definitely told the euro-trash gun grabbing crowd to go pound sand in those "conferences" (on how to disarm America)...

I don't think they are going to forget or forgive that stance...

I would almost go on to say that we should not bother holding our breath on hoping nothing is introduced or passed regarding any pro gun-control legislation...I believe they learned their lesson on the first AWB...

There will NOT be a "sunset clause" in the next one...

Ammunition will probably be a subtle target for them to regulate out of business or out of our budgets (to a large extent...)...

So I am not so sure what could be done to curb this potential infringement on our right to keep and bear arms...

They'll probably laugh and say sure! You can keep your silly guns...We're just going to tax a fee you people on the ammo you buy...

It's only the beginning...

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:16 pm

How exactly do you think the U.N., an International council of ambassadors, is going to impose such a tax on us? Ever heard of "No taxation without representation."? Our Congress would have to approve any such tax. The U.N. can truly go and pound sand about it.

You want a sure fire way to rid ourselves with the worry of what the U.N. wants to do? Thats easy. We leave and kick them out of our country. Then we pull ALL funding from every single nation that rebukes us for it doing it. If they don't like us, fine. They don't get our money. Its like kickin the stool out from under em, and watching em kick and struggle for air as they asphyxiate.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:11 pm

kauboy wrote:How exactly do you think the U.N., an International council of ambassadors, is going to impose such a tax on us? Ever heard of "No taxation without representation."? Our Congress would have to approve any such tax. The U.N. can truly go and pound sand about it.

You want a sure fire way to rid ourselves with the worry of what the U.N. wants to do? Thats easy. We leave and kick them out of our country. Then we pull ALL funding from every single nation that rebukes us for it doing it. If they don't like us, fine. They don't get our money. Its like kickin the stool out from under em, and watching em kick and struggle for air as they asphyxiate.

Well I like your idea...Its been one bantered around patriotic forums like this for years...

Now that we have a U.N. friendly Congress, it'll make "their" job easier now...

And if they still have a margin, and gain a liberal President, I can probably bet you a dollar to a donut hole that we'll be in for some interesting and trying times...

I have no use for the U.N., I doubt I ever will...If they went away, my heart would bleed purple kool-aid...

So unless we do what we can to keep a wall between us and them the better...We just lost a big keystone in it with this resignation...

I believe we can do without an ambassador to that yahoo group for a while...Let em stew for a couple of years...Why give them the time of day...

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:23 pm

stevie_d_64 wrote:
kauboy wrote:How exactly do you think the U.N., an International council of ambassadors, is going to impose such a tax on us? Ever heard of "No taxation without representation."? Our Congress would have to approve any such tax. The U.N. can truly go and pound sand about it.

You want a sure fire way to rid ourselves with the worry of what the U.N. wants to do? Thats easy. We leave and kick them out of our country. Then we pull ALL funding from every single nation that rebukes us for it doing it. If they don't like us, fine. They don't get our money. Its like kickin the stool out from under em, and watching em kick and struggle for air as they asphyxiate.
And if they still have a margin, and gain a liberal President, I can probably bet you a dollar to a donut hole that we'll be in for some interesting and trying times...

I don't think I'll be takin that bet

I have no doubt that they will try, but I can still laugh at the futility. Remember the whole NWO incident when we were being threatened with having our guns completely taken away? There was so much commotion, yet everybody failed to mention that in order to change our Constitution, ALL states must ratify it. We were completely safe, yet a tizzy was abounding over it.

They are a pathetic group of dictators who want their only real opponent (us) to be subject to their will. I would love to see them each receive a swift kick in the pants for their stupidity.

John · Post by **John** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:00 pm

If Bush nominates George Mitchell, I'll be needing some Libertarian literature from you guys.

That'll be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me.

I am really disappointed that Bolton did not get confirmed. We (the United States of America) needed him at the UN.

John · Post by **John** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:03 pm

kauboy wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote:
kauboy wrote:How exactly do you think the U.N., an International council of ambassadors, is going to impose such a tax on us? Ever heard of "No taxation without representation."? Our Congress would have to approve any such tax. The U.N. can truly go and pound sand about it.

You want a sure fire way to rid ourselves with the worry of what the U.N. wants to do? Thats easy. We leave and kick them out of our country. Then we pull ALL funding from every single nation that rebukes us for it doing it. If they don't like us, fine. They don't get our money. Its like kickin the stool out from under em, and watching em kick and struggle for air as they asphyxiate.
And if they still have a margin, and gain a liberal President, I can probably bet you a dollar to a donut hole that we'll be in for some interesting and trying times...
I don't think I'll be takin that bet

I have no doubt that they will try, but I can still laugh at the futility. Remember the whole NWO incident when we were being threatened with having our guns completely taken away? There was so much commotion, yet everybody failed to mention that in order to change our Constitution, ALL states must ratify it. We were completely safe, yet a tizzy was abounding over it.

They are a pathetic group of dictators who want their only real opponent (us) to be subject to their will. I would love to see them each receive a swift kick in the pants for their stupidity.

Kauboy... I need to research this, but I think I recall that a treaty can override the constitution. I may be wrong, but will check.

Update... I was incorrect, a treaty can preempt state laws because a treaty, like the constitution, is the "law of the land". See article VI of the Constitution.

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:12 pm

A treaty is between Governments. Our Government is controlled by us. Therefore, I will be the one to decide whether we accept such a "treaty". Besides, a treaty to the U.N. is like a law to a criminal. They can try to enforce it, but my Beretta will have some speakin up to do if they attempt it.

John · Post by **John** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:18 pm

I believe, very much subject to correction, that a treaty with the UN on gun control could be enforced because "gun control", I.E. registration, is a state issue. Since the constitution puts treaties on a federal level as being "law of the land", any treaty signed by our government would override state laws. However, a treaty that banned all guns would be against the second amendment and would not be valid. Am I incorrect?

nitrogen · Post by **nitrogen** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:27 pm

John wrote:
Kauboy... I need to research this, but I think I recall that a treaty can override the constitution. I may be wrong, but will check.

Update... I was incorrect, a treaty can preempt state laws because a treaty, like the constitution, is the "law of the land". See article VI of the Constitution.

I think you're looking for Missouri v. Holland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:29 pm

John wrote:I believe, very much subject to correction, that a treaty with the UN on gun control could be enforced because "gun control", I.E. registration, is a state issue. Since the constitution puts treaties on a federal level as being "law of the land", any treaty signed by our government would override state laws. However, a treaty that banned all guns would be against the second amendment and would not be valid. Am I incorrect?

This was much of the muck being stirred up at the time...And everyone was in a "tizzy" about it because you had one side of Constitutional scholars arguing that it did usurp the Constitution according to that article...

And another group that said it didn't or wouldn't, however you looked at it...

All in all, a lot of the tar-paper shack types I saw and heard we're waiting for the baby-blue helmets to be roaming our streets in the white U.N. APC's looking to rumble...I kinda giggled at some of that, because I think we are smarter than they take us for...

Not that I like tar-paper shacks...Don't get me wrong...I like and have earned my creature comforts...

I don't think it'll come to that...

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:33 pm

nitrogen wrote:
John wrote:
Kauboy... I need to research this, but I think I recall that a treaty can override the constitution. I may be wrong, but will check.

Update... I was incorrect, a treaty can preempt state laws because a treaty, like the constitution, is the "law of the land". See article VI of the Constitution.
I think you're looking for Missouri v. Holland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland

Nitro gets a cookie!

BTW, I guess you've read "Men in Black" By Mark Levin???

Thats a real good read if you're into this wacky history of the U.S. Supreme Court stuff...

John · Post by **John** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:34 pm

nitrogen wrote:
John wrote:
Kauboy... I need to research this, but I think I recall that a treaty can override the constitution. I may be wrong, but will check.

Update... I was incorrect, a treaty can preempt state laws because a treaty, like the constitution, is the "law of the land". See article VI of the Constitution.
I think you're looking for Missouri v. Holland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland

Correct: the ruling held that:

Treaties made by the federal government are supreme over any state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:04 pm

If the Wiki is right, then any treaty made is considered "co-equal" to the constitution.
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution
"This Constitution, and the law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

This means that the Constitution, "the law of the land", and all treaties are equal to eachother. None oversteps the other at the federal level. They do however all userp state Constitutions and laws. But since our right to keep and bear arms is written in the Federal government's official documents(U.S. Constitution), no treaty can affect it. Simple as that. Our guns are safe from the dictatorial tyrants who wish otherwise.

You can imagine the field day that lawyers would have trying to convince the nation that their "client" should reign supreme.

We can't have contradictory laws, so the easiest thing to do is to not adopt the contraditing one. The other route would require that all states ratify a Constitutional amendment to remove the 2nd. I'd like to see em try.