Actually, they needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, making the needed (and achieved) number at 60 votes.
Well THAT would be unconstitutional. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. What you propose is Authoritarian and not the American way. I'm surprised you would advocate something so unpatriotic and un-American.
Resignation does not require redress. Further, if the President fires him that does not require redress.
Nothing has to happen prior to a resignation. That's the point isn't it? Resign, or face an embarrassing hearing prior to possibly being fired?
Still authoritarian to assume guilt without trial, friend. This is precisely what you have done here, no matter how you try to spin it.
He would certainly have the right to due process, but the hearings so far are painting a pretty good picture of a cover-up from high up in the Justice Department.
Senate would shoot down U.N. treaty abridging U.S. gun rights: More than two centuries ago, our Founding Fathers wisely amended the U.S. Constitution to guarantee a Bill of Rights for its citizens. Rooted in freedom, our democracy has stood strong as Americans have enjoyed liberties unparalleled in the world - including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Today, our freedoms and our countrys sovereignty are in danger of being undermined by the United Nations. In October 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama administration voted for the United States to participate in negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) - a reversal of the previous administrations position. This treaty purportedly is intended to establish common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the ATT would restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in our country. Last month, the ATT Preparatory Committee met in New York as part of a series of meetings prior to finalizing the treaty next year for adoption. Based on the process to date, I am gravely concerned this treaty will infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners and will be used by other countries that do not share our freedoms to wrongly place the burden of controlling international crime and terrorism on law-abiding American citizens. Proposals being considered by the committee would adversely impact U.S. gun owners. There have been regular calls for bans on the civilian ownership of guns Americans use to hunt, target-shoot and defend themselves. By requiring firearms to be accounted for throughout their life span, the ATT could lead to mandatory nationwide gun registration. Still other proposals could require the marking and tracking of all ammunition. Forty-four U.S. senators recently joined me in sending a powerful message to the Obama administration: A U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. On July 22, we notified President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of our intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts Second Amendment rights. In fact, our opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require two-thirds approval to be ratified. In notifying the Obama administration, we outlined several concerns. First, civilian firearms and ammunition should not be included in the scope of the ATT. Preparatory meetings have made it clear that many U.N. member states aim to craft an extremely broad treaty. For example, Mexico and several countries in Central and South America have called for the treaty to cover all types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials. Such a treaty would be incredibly difficult to enforce and would pose dangers to all U.S. businesses and individuals involved in any aspect of the firearms industry, from manufacturers to dealers to consumers. Second, any regulation of the domestic manufacturing, possession or purchase of firearms and ammunition is completely unacceptable. U.N. member states regularly argue that no treaty controlling the transfer of arms internationally can be effective without controls on transfers inside a countrys own borders. At stake is our countrys autonomy and the rights of American citizens protected under the Constitution. Finally, America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes, and its citizens should not be punished by the ATT. There is no disagreement that sales and transfers to criminals and terrorists are unacceptable, but law-abiding Americans should not be held responsible for international crime and acts of terrorism. Instead, the responsibility should be on U.N. member states that have not enforced existing laws and have failed to block illegal trafficking of arms. Our countrys sovereignty and Second Amendment rights must not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights. As the treaty process continues, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure that any Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival because our firearm freedoms are not negotiable. Source
"so far" Being the key phrase here. The hearings aren't even completed yet and you have him guilty and unemployed. Your position IS authoritarian even though you are trying to spin it otherwise. The beauty of this Country is that we ALL have rights,..... even Eric Holder. You seem to have forgotten this.
What is the name of this so-called treaty, and what specifically does it say? Until this is covered here you're only peeing in the wind with suppositions and fearful hyperbole. Facts ARE important.
Good lord. This small arms treaty nonsense has been floating around for far too long. The Arms Trade Treaty the myth is based upon is a concept from the UN and has no relationship to any bills in that I am aware of that exist in any stage in Congress. I would love to see exactly what bill is being suggested as the instrument for getting this treaty passed. People, please realize that there is still such a thing as the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is still a fundamental right under Constitutional Law. Read Reid v. Covert. The Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
I do not believe that the UN Small Arms Treaty has been published yet. They are still working out the details. The Obama Administration supports it, but fortunately, it would take an act of Congress to make it binding to the U.S. This is extremely unlikely. Yes, we are protected by our Constitution. I am not really worried that this Treaty would ever impact us. I just don't get why the Obama Administration would support a UN Treaty that they know would not receive support. I suppose they want to appease the UN for some reason. Zimbabwe remains the only opposition vote to the Treaty.
Flawed logic, friend. You are assuming the UN has a power it does not actually possess. Are we to believe that every country except Zimbabwe is trying to appease the UN? Really? Look, you could really help yourself as to this issue with factual knowledge.
This is nothing new. I have already mentioned in my previous post about Congress having to authorize it.
Then you didn't real all of it. It goes into the reasons behind the future Treaty, and interestingly, none of them were because Obama wishes to appease the UN. Educate yourself, friend before you form your opinions.
If you were looking for something that showed Obama wanted to appease the U.N., then you are more gullible than I thought. It was my opinion, buddy.
Ayuh,... Don't you know, accordin' to reliever, 'n dannyboy,... Opinions are irrelevant, unless some professor has written a paper explainin' yer opinion for ya.... Peer reviewed, 'n approved by committee, of course,...
That was my point, thank you. You formed your opinion from incomplete information, which you now admit to. Many zealots do this, but not critical thinkers. Which one are you?