Molon Labe!
Posted on 03/07/2004 12:26:50 PM PST by westerfield
Shielded by the media glare of presidential politics and daily explosions in Iraq, two crucial issues are about to be decided by the U.S. Senate, without the knowledge of the American people.
Issue 1: Should the United States ratify the Law of the Seas Treaty (Treaty Doc. 103-39)?
Issue 2: Should any U.N. treaty be ratified without full, open debate and a recorded vote?
The answer to both questions should be a resounding "no." Nevertheless, the treaty is very near ratification by unanimous consent, having never been debated, and without a recorded vote. This is the same procedure used to ratify the U.N. Convention on Desertification, back in 2000.
The Law of the Seas Treaty was rejected by Ronald Reagan in 1982. After some polishing around the edges of the treaty language, Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1994 and sent it to the Senate for ratification. There it sat, dormant, until Oct. 7, 2003. Mysteriously, the treaty appeared on the Foreign Relations Committee hearings calendar on Oct. 14 and Oct. 21, but no opposing voices were allowed to present testimony. This is precisely the same procedure used with the Convention on Desertification.
Next, a request for unanimous consent is issued. If no senator files an objection within a specified period of time, then the treaty can be approved by a voice vote, with no votes recorded.
After the Convention on Desertification was ratified by unanimous consent, many senators did not know it had even been considered or that they had voted for it.
All the reasons the treaty was rejected by Ronald Reagan 22 years ago still exist. The treaty gives a U.N. agency the authority to tax by requiring a permit to engage in any activity affecting the seabed, such as oil drilling or mining. Originally, the permit fee price began at $500,000. Madeleine Albright's renegotiated version reduced the starting price to $250,000. The U.N. agency can also require royalty payments for any minerals extracted from the seabed. Even more important, the permit process can require detailed information about the technology to be used, which can then be shared with all member nations without regard for intellectual-property rights or security concerns.
The treaty raises serious national-security questions. Currently, any ship on the high seas that the U.S. suspects of carrying terrorists or supplies in support of terrorists can be boarded and detained under U.S. law. If the U.S. ratifies this treaty, the U.N.'s permission will be necessary before stopping a ship on the high seas.
This treaty gives the U.N. the first real power to tax and regulate what it calls the "global commons." Other U.N. initiatives seek to tax and regulate all of the global commons, which the U.N. defines to include "outer space, the atmosphere and the environment that supports human life." ("Our Global Neighborhood," p. 251)
If Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, has his way, this treaty will become the law of the land without ever being debated and without a recorded vote. Every senator should recoil against this process and insist that if the treaty is to be ratified, the American people deserve to know which senators voted for and against this surrender of national sovereignty.
The U.S. Senate has become proficient at bypassing constitutional direction. Senate Democrats use Senate rules to block judicial appointments rather than to comply with the directive of the Constitution. Now the Senate Republicans are using Senate rules to avoid the two-thirds vote required to ratify any treaty. This behavior, on both sides of the political aisle, is nothing short of despicable – unworthy of any official who has sworn to uphold the Constitution.
The only power on earth strong enough to bridle the run-away power of run-amok senators is people power. The people who put them in office can remove them from office, and these senators need to be reminded of that power from time to time. This Law of the Seas Treaty is one of the times the American people should exercise their power and hold their senators accountable. The telephone is a handy tool between elections. Every senator should be asked to explain his or her position on the treaty itself and on the unanimous consent process.
The future of America is too important to be left in the hands of politicians; the people, by their actions, or inaction, will determine whether the United States continues as a sovereign nation or succumbs to the U.N.'s quest for global governance.
Deep Seabed Mining: U.S. Interests and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea: Living Resources Provisions
Just what good do you think that will do?
Call your Senator and tell him he sucks for not recording his vote
U.N./SENATE ON-GOING RAPE OF CONSTITUTION PING!
Molon Labe!
*please ping your lists*Treaty by stealth – again!
Thanks for the heads up, Onyx ! ...
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
"All the reasons the treaty was rejected by Ronald Reagan 22 years ago still exist. The treaty gives a U.N. agency the authority to tax by requiring a permit to engage in any activity affecting the seabed, such as oil drilling or mining. Originally, the permit fee price began at $500,000. Madeleine Albright's renegotiated version reduced the starting price to $250,000. The U.N. agency can also require royalty payments for any minerals extracted from the seabed. Even more important, the permit process can require detailed information about the technology to be used, which can then be shared with all member nations without regard for intellectual-property rights or security concerns.
The treaty raises serious national-security questions. Currently, any ship on the high seas that the U.S. suspects of carrying terrorists or supplies in support of terrorists can be boarded and detained under U.S. law. If the U.S. ratifies this treaty, the U.N.'s permission will be necessary before stopping a ship on the high seas.
This treaty gives the U.N. the first real power to tax and regulate what it calls the "global commons." Other U.N. initiatives seek to tax and regulate all of the global commons, which the U.N. defines to include "outer space, the atmosphere and the environment that supports human life." ("Our Global Neighborhood," p. 251)
If Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, has his way, this treaty will become the law of the land without ever being debated and without a recorded vote. Every senator should recoil against this process and insist that if the treaty is to be ratified, the American people deserve to know which senators voted for and against this surrender of national sovereignty."
Global nightmare: Saving the LOST
Law Of The Sea By Dark Of Night By Paul M. Weyrich March 3, 2004
John Kerry’s Treaty - Outsourcing sovereignty
The treaty fails to address, let alone offer solutions to, the most dangerous flashpoints for military conflict facing the world. In fact, Communist China is using its own unique interpretation of the treaty to justify its inexorably increasing control over the strategic South China Sea. The PRC creates and fortifies man-made islands near that sea's rich oil and mineral deposits, then asserts that LOST entitles it to exclusive economic control of the waters within a 200 nautical-mile radius — including waters transited by the vast majority of Japanese and American oil tankers en route to and from the Persian Gulf.
After the Convention on Desertification was ratified by unanimous consent, many senators did not know it had even been considered or that they had voted for it.
That appears to me to me gross negligence.
Or an outright bold faced lie.
A lie that'll be swallowed hook line & sinker by the ignorant, dumbed down electorate.
...again.
...for slimey sellout RINO of the year.
No more UN for US-list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
He needs to be voted out of office, but I doubt of the sheep in my state will ever do that.
If any rule or regulation is created by any entity other than Congress, the rule may be nullified by fifty percent of either the House or the Senate, or by the President. Once nullified, the rule may not be reinstated except by standard legislative process.Anyone like that notion?
Hey Tex .. what's your take on this and why the heck are they doing this .. are they insane?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
