Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord

Wordpress Fighting Words Blog ^ | 15 OCT 2009 | Walter @ Fightin' Words

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Bump Dat...

[Diogenesis]

“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

Not this treasonous SCOTUS.
It cannot recognize: ethics, codes of ethics, Constitution, sworn Oaths, or Honor.

[Shermy]

“Treaties need to be approved by two-thirds of the senate.”

True.

They are trying an end-around with cap and trade without Kyoto, and agreeing by legislation to international schemes.

[uncitizen]

Anyone else find it disturbing that people from the British and Canadian and Australian governments and media seem to understand and care more about the future of our country than our own government officials and media???

Daily these people, our friends in the world community, are warning us, shouting from the rooftops, WAKE UP AMERICA! and most Americans are too busy watching America’s Got Talent.....(shaking head)

[Boogieman]

True, but that doesn’t mean this guy’s statement about our Constitution allowing a treaty to supercede itself is correct.

[opentalk]

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.

We see this, Beck is exposing it, Obama is only one man, where are the checks and balance?

[Diogenesis]

Constitution?

Was not aware that was operative today, FRiend.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[muir_redwoods]

The 2nd amendment defines who ultimately holds sovereignty in this country

[Marysecretary]

How?

[Vendome]

As far as I know the Constitution is the Supreme Law of Land and even treaties cannot trump it’s provisions.

The preamble even state the Constitution is made for the people.

[PhiKapMom]

We need a group to file a lawsuit and get whatever they do ruled Unconstitutional. Cap and Trade will waste so much and bankrupt business. Would love to shove it in Graham’s face.

[Yadanuiat]

You’re right. Treaties don’t supersede the Constitution, but once they are ratified, they do become the law of the land.

Wiki has a decent article about the Constitution and Treaties and how they are amended, superseded or repealed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

[b4its2late]

No surprise.

[SuziQ]

Doesn't the Senate have to confirm any treaty signed by the President?
Oh, never mind. ;o(

[Museum Twenty]

Bump

[Museum Twenty]

Bump

[Always Independent]

Jst curious, but will the russians or the chinese be sigining away their sovereignity in this treaty?

[El Gato]

if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution

Fortunately, it doesn't. Treaties must be made "Under the Authority of the United States". The United States (government) only has that authority granted to it by the Constitution.

Besides which that is missreading of the Treaty suppremacy clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws 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 the 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.

A treaty is supreme over the (Constitution or Laws) of any state. Not over (the Constitution) or (Laws of any state). It's *state* Constitutions that are potentially subservient to treaties made under the authority of the United States. Not the Federal/US Constitution.

Now that said, it would not supprise me if Obummer didn't try to pull this off. The Senate must ratify treaties before they bind the US and the states, a provision left over from the time when the Senators represented their states, not merely the people who live there. It should probably be amended to require a vote of the state legislatures to ratify a treaty, since they are bound by it once it's ratified.

[Walter Scott Hudson]

My reply to a similar sentiment expressed elsewhere:

I agree with you on principle. However, there is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced. Like any law, if there is no one policing to detect and deter violations, it has no meaning. A cursory examination of American history reveals numerous examples of the built-in limitations of government being violently abused or ignored. At the end of the day we are the limitation on the executive. We are the Law. We have to keep this from happening.