Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How treaties trump the Constitution
World Net Daily ^ | July 17, 2004 | Henry Lamb

Posted on 07/17/2004 5:00:33 AM PDT by Mikey

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate private property. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to manage wildlife or prescribe land-use regulations within the various states.

By what authority, then, has the federal government constructed the expansive bureaucracy that now forces wolves, panthers and bears on states and communities that don't want them, or levied fines, and jailed people who dare dig a ditch or dump a load of sand on their own private property?

This federal power arises from the treaty clause (Article VI (2)) of the U.S. Constitution.

Alabama attorney Larry Becraft provides an excellent analysis of just how and when this treaty power was discovered. This power has been exploited dramatically in recent years, and is the basis for imposing a global environmental and social agenda on the United States.

Before the Ramsar Treaty, no American was jailed for dumping sand on his own private property. Ocie Mills and his son spent 21 months in a federal prison and a decade in litigation for dumping 19 loads of building sand on his own property after securing a county building permit and approval from the state department of environmental protection.

Before the CITES Treaty, no one would fault a person for shooting a charging bear. John Shuler was fined $7,000 and spent nine years in litigation because he shot a grizzly – charging toward him only 30-feet away from his front porch.

Environmental extremists, inside and outside the government, are using international treaties to expand the power of government far beyond the power granted originally by the Constitution.

The process has been refined to an art. Environmental organizations pour millions of dollars into the campaigns of elected officials. When elected, the officials repay the favor by appointing executives of the environmental organizations to powerful governmental positions. The Clinton/Gore administration appointed at least 27 of these extremists to powerful positions, including Bruce Babbitt from the League of Conservation Voters to head the Department of Interior, and George Frampton from the Wilderness Society to head the Fish and Wildlife Service.

More than 50 major U.S. environmental organizations, and six federal agencies (including the U.S. State Department), are members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, an international non-government organization that has drafted virtually all of the international environmental treaties for half a century. Delegations that represent the U.S. in treaty negotiations are headed by the U.S. State Department. When a treaty is adopted by the U.N. body, the federal agencies and the environmental organizations that helped draft the treaty then lobby Congress and their constituents to demand ratification.

The League of Conservation Voters supported the Clinton/Gore ticket in 1992. They got their reward. Now the LCW is supporting the Kerry/Edwards ticket. They expect, and will undoubtedly get their reward if the two Johns are elected.

When George Bush was elected in 2000, the international community was bitterly disappointed, and had cause to be. Bush immediately withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, which Al Gore personally navigated through the contentious 1997 U.N. conference in Kyoto, Japan.

Bush immediately withdrew the U.S. signature from the International Criminal Court, which the Clinton administration signed just hours before the deadline. Bush also pulled the plug on a decade-long strategy to authorize U.N. global taxation when he forced a rewrite of the document produced by the U.N.'s High Level Panel on Financing Development in Monterrey, Mexico.

The power of U.N. treaties over domestic policy is not limited to environmental regulations. Increasingly, the U.N. is developing treaties to govern the Internet, the oceans, space, domestic taxation, trade and virtually every other area of human activity.

The Bush administration was right in withdrawing from U.N. activity, but it is a meager first step in a process of withdrawal that must be accelerated. Sadly, many internationalist environmental extremists remain embedded in the Bush administration and in Congress. The recent revival of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, pushed by John Turner in the State Department, and Sen. Richard Lugar, is evidence that a more thorough cleansing of government is needed.

The elections in November are a referendum on whether to continue to disrupt the U.N. process of dominating domestic public policy, or whether we will return to the Clinton/Gore days of advancing the internationalist/environmental agenda through U.N. treaties. John Kerry has made clear his intention to restore international favor by subjecting the United States to the will of the international community.

__________________________

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: consitution; treaties; usconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last
And still the people sleep.

Want to return to a Constitutional government? Than vote for Peroutka for president

1 posted on 07/17/2004 5:00:34 AM PDT by Mikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: upier

ping


2 posted on 07/17/2004 5:08:56 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey

So you are a shill for the two john's!
A vote for anybody but President Bush is a vote for
the two johns.


3 posted on 07/17/2004 5:20:20 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Liberals are like catfish ( all mouth and no brains )(bottom feeders))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey; BC girl; Willie Green; farmfriend; editor-surveyor; Jim Robinson; sauropod

United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154, 160 (E.D.Ark. 1914)

"All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void..........."

Jurisdiction Questioned - Part I
Treaties empower Congress - Part II
FDA, DEA find basis in Treaties - Part III
==============================

Guys, The above court decision came from part 1 of Larry Becraft's articles posted at Eco-Logic / Powerhouse. Government run amok by legislating judges. Peace and love, George.

4 posted on 07/17/2004 5:44:32 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran; Mikey; Willie Green; ml/nj; upier; farmfriend; editor-surveyor; BC girl; ...
The elections in November are a referendum on whether to continue to disrupt the U.N. process of dominating domestic public policy, or whether we will return to the Clinton/Gore days of advancing the internationalist/environmental agenda through U.N. treaties. John Kerry has made clear his intention to restore international favor by subjecting the United States to the will of the international community.
=====================================
Guys, As much as it disgusts me to say it, we have a real choice between only two Presidential candidates. Bush, or Kerry. To vote otherwise only dilutes the vote of the one of the two YOU would rather see hold the reins. Truly disgusting, but true nonetheless. Henry is right on as usual. Peace and love, George.
5 posted on 07/17/2004 5:55:33 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
The current reading of the treaty clause is insupportable.

It cannot be so that amending the Constitution requires 2/3 of both Houses of Congress AND 3/4 of the States if the same purpose can be accomplished by the President and 2/3 of the Senate in the form of a Treaty.

It is most reasonable to believe that, absent a proper amendment, that no treaty can confer on the government at Washington powers not granted by the Constitution, and that no treaty can confer on States intrinsic police powers not granted by the People of each State.

6 posted on 07/17/2004 5:56:19 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

JR, Can you keep this in extended news for awhile. I realize that all of my posts to extended news are summarily rejected, but this {as most} IS extended/ongoing news. Peace and love, George.


7 posted on 07/17/2004 5:59:01 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

"President and 2/3 of the Senate in the form of a Treaty."

JN, Actually, the wording is "provided two thirds of the Senators present" {Article II; section 2; paragraph two; sentence one}. Treaties can {and have} been ratified by MANY Senators less than Quorum present. As few as three would suffice. Peace and love, George.

8 posted on 07/17/2004 6:11:20 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine

documenting our loss of sovereignty and the rise of the UN bump


9 posted on 07/17/2004 6:29:58 AM PDT by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey

Mr. Bush is slowly rolling back the UN fascist executive orders signed by Clinton. To do this all at once would turn the brainless soccer moms against him. He recently dumped Clinton's EO banning roads on millions of acres of the federal socialist forests.

I don't believe a treaty can rightfully trump or erase the constitution. If so, the founders made a huge mistake in not clearly outlining what treaty may or may not do. If a treaty can erase the constitution, I can imagine a Kerry outlawing the 2nd amendment by signing the UN treaty on small arms. And a civil war follows.


10 posted on 07/17/2004 6:32:43 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey

Please.
He'll be gone inside of his first day if he doesn't cow the NWO line.
The only reason W is still around is because of who his dad is.

My thinking is they want him out, as they were promised he would go along with the program, and he didn't.

Witness - James Baker and H.W. opposing the Iraq War Resolution.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.


11 posted on 07/17/2004 6:33:45 AM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey
Of all the treaties that involve the United Nations and the United States, the La Paz Agreement signed in 1983 and part of the United Nations Agenda 21, (link to agreement) is perhaps the most damaging treaty to the United States sovereignty, leaving our southern border sort of a no-man’s land. It seemed a good idea at the time and has some value if Mexico would honor their side of the agreement. It however, gave the EPA enormous power in both countries.

This is a must read to understand some of the problems facing both U.S. and Mexico: (how Nafta fits)

The many arms of the United Nations quietly lifting the sovereignty of nations......(part of UN Agenda 21)

You could spend literally months on this and the resulting agencies and never find who is really in charge other than the knowledge your American tax dollar is being used to keep these agencies at work and perhaps an unforeseen result is we are now paying taxes to the United Nations. The environment and water laws are among the most difficult for anyone not trained in those laws to decipher...they are like the La Paz Agreement, Border XX1, the United Nations Agenda 21 and Hillary Clinton –” taking from each for the common good.” Marxism on a grand scale.

12 posted on 07/17/2004 6:37:37 AM PDT by yoe (Mobbed up = WJC & HRC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey

America is going to learn the hard way that the United Nations works against it's interest.

Our politicians are nothing but fools.

Look at most of the laws passed lately, that are unconstitutional.

Most of them are done by reports that the delegations of the United Nations make up.

These reports become laws in America.

Congress is so easily lead by these reports that they base their opinions on to vote by.

Most of them go along with them this international world government.

Just look at the rulings of the Supreme Courts. Some of them say we should go by international law.

And Congress members changing our tax laws. Because the WTO says we have to.

THe WTO meets in secret and we don't know who sits on the board, but yet they are making all our trade laws.

Like I said, their Fools.


13 posted on 07/17/2004 6:45:45 AM PDT by take
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm


14 posted on 07/17/2004 6:51:40 AM PDT by take
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey

Treaties are a subset of federal law (not constitutional amendments).
By that I mean that some treaties are law (by themselves), but 'non-self-enacting' treaties need additional
(includes the House of Representatives)federal law to take effect. A treaty, by itself, never gives the executive more authority, over domestic matters.


15 posted on 07/17/2004 6:55:10 AM PDT by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park

BTTT


16 posted on 07/17/2004 6:56:46 AM PDT by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The current reading of the treaty clause is insupportable.

Here's the clause from Article VI:

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.
The way I read it is: "Constitution, federal laws, and treaties override State laws or State constitutions", NOT "Treaties override the US Constitution". Anybody dispute my understanding of the plain language of the text?

No treaty can be valid which requires the federal government to exercise powers that were not granted by the Constitution

17 posted on 07/17/2004 7:23:23 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
I have updated my FMCDH sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the communist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, and the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government.

FMCDH(BITS)

18 posted on 07/17/2004 7:24:39 AM PDT by nothingnew (KERRY: "If at first you don't deceive, lie, lie again!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
No treaty can be valid which requires the federal government to exercise powers that were not granted by the Constitution

Well, that's my point stated much better.

The treaty power granted to the President and the Senate is not the power to amend the Constitution without the Article V processes.

A treaty that forbade public speech disparaging to homosexuals, for example, would not impair the right of the people to freely exercise their religion.

19 posted on 07/17/2004 7:36:00 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
So anyone who would vote CP actually wants Kerry to win? That's odd. One would think that they'd just vote for Kerry intead. Maybe we shouldn't tell them about their error.
20 posted on 07/17/2004 7:44:53 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Treaties can {and have} been ratified by MANY Senators less than Quorum present. As few as three would suffice. Peace and love, George.

Source for this? The Constitution is unambiguous in requiring a majority of each house present in order for that house to conduct any business.

21 posted on 07/17/2004 7:47:14 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble; SauronOfMordor
"It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument." The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. ( 78 U.S.), 616, 620 (1871).

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition--to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V." - 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

"The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States." Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853)

22 posted on 07/17/2004 7:49:43 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: yoe
The many arms of the United Nations quietly lifting the sovereignty of nations

Back to first principles.

The governments of the world-except this one-are the sovereigns in their respective lands, having succeeded personal sovereigns or been imposed by outside powers.

These sovereign governments can surrender all or part of their sovereign powers to transnational entities or other nations at will.

The government of the United States has no such power, since the People are sovereign in this land. Transfer of some or all of Our sovereign powers requires a new Constitution.

23 posted on 07/17/2004 7:50:29 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: take
"Our politicians are nothing but fools."

But moreso are those that suffer them. That's us, folks!

We've been too trusting of government. Too slow in forcing ourselves to believe congress, the courts, and the executive branch have ALL led us down the primrose path of globalism through the years.

One step at a time, one law at a time, one treaty at a time.

Treaties, contrary to what the globalists in government would have you believe, do not supersede the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- a continuous document. There is a logical hierarchical structure to the supreme law of the land as outlined in Article VI, para 2.

No law can be passed or enforced that is in contradiction, or out of harmony with, or nullify any part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- a continous document.

Laws based on treaties must meet the same standards as any other law congress passes before they become part of the supreme law. If a law is repugnant, so are those that attempt to pass it -- and criminal indeed are those that enforce it.

Now if you'll pardon me, I have to go back to sleep for another couple of hundred years. May your chains rest lightly.

24 posted on 07/17/2004 8:07:08 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet; dcwusmc; Neil E. Wright

FYI


25 posted on 07/17/2004 8:27:44 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mikey

Meant to ping you too.


26 posted on 07/17/2004 8:29:26 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj; George Frm Br00klyn Park; Jim Noble; TigersEye; sergeantdave; yoe; greasepaint; ...

Bump to # 24


27 posted on 07/17/2004 8:47:33 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

PS: Next time someone tells you that ignorance of the law is no excuse, tell that that ignorance of the hierarchy of the supreme law of the land is no excuse either.


28 posted on 07/17/2004 10:14:54 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Wanna apply your skills over here? ;>


29 posted on 07/17/2004 10:18:36 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: inquest
No if they were semi-honest they would vote
for the two johns.
They will not because they hope to pull votes
from the best man.
If they would start smaller ( maybe dog catcher)
they might get a few more votes.
30 posted on 07/17/2004 10:50:36 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Liberals are like catfish ( all mouth and no brains )(bottom feeders))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
".....any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

SOM, The way I read it is that contrary laws, either State or Constitution, are no longer relevant, as they are "NOT with standing". That is how the bastards work it anyway. Peace and love, George.

31 posted on 07/17/2004 11:09:27 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I, A WorldNetDaily article by Henry Lamb Posted on FR Details it pretty well. Most Senators had no idea that the treaties had been ratified. The dirty deed is done late when most are out, and no one calls for a quorum. It ocurs to me that even one Senator with the President of the Senate could ratify a treaty. One person's yea vote would be 100% {Unanimous consent} of Senators present. Peace and love, George.
32 posted on 07/17/2004 11:19:11 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
There's two ways to parse it:
  1. Constitution or (Laws of any State) or
  2. (Constitution or Laws) of any State
In the first, the Constitution referred to is the US Constitution, in the second, it's State constitutions.

If the first parsing is correct, then it means that the elaborate mechanism specified for amending the Constitution is superfluous, since any amendment could be achieved by entering into a treaty. For example, a treaty with Lichtenstein which proclaimed that the current President was now a hereditary King, and get it passed by a midnight quorum of senators.

Since this is absurd, the correct parsing must be #2

33 posted on 07/17/2004 12:12:53 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
"Anybody dispute my understanding of the plain language of the text?"

Nobody in my house will, for that is exactly correct. The Founders would never have written a document which could be disposed of with a treaty law. Boggles the mind. But that's what happens anyway, notwithstanding (in spite of) the Founders intent and specific instructions not to do that.

Congress' stupidity with the booze amendment went beyond the pale. Passing it to begin with was wrong. Repealing it was another crime, for it annulled a part of the Constitution that was already judged a part of the supreme law of the land. The felony was compounded, you might say.

That trick alone established a precedent and opened the door for congress to remove or alter any amendment.

But why do that when they can get a treaty passed in the middle of the night on Saturday with just a couple of senators present; or bury the legislation on the bottom of a 10,000-page Bill; or pull up the commerce clause, or claim a compelling state interest; or use fast-track legislation; or executive agreements? Did I miss anything?

34 posted on 07/17/2004 12:30:15 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

Yes, I missed the biggee! The 'Welfare' clause. Heh.


35 posted on 07/17/2004 12:35:52 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mikey
Treaties do not "trump" the Constitution, but they may expand federal powers. However they may not violate explict provisions of the Constitutiion. A treaty could not deny citizens the right to a jury trial, or allow the Federal Government to establish a state religion. Why? Take a close look at the supremacy 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.

First observe that the "Constitution in the last clause of that sentence refers to state Constitutions, not the federal one. Second, treaties can only be made, and thus are only valid, if they are made under the authority of the United States. By the terms of the tenth amendment, the United States only has that authority explicitly given by the Constitution, and exercise of that authority is limited by the Bill of Rights and other restrictions contained in the main body of the original Constitution. Thus any treaty which is in conflict with the Federal Constitution is invalid.

36 posted on 07/17/2004 1:11:34 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
A WorldNetDaily article by Henry Lamb Posted on FR Details it pretty well.

That article didn't mention anything about the number of Senators who actually voted for the amendment. There's nothing indicating there was less than a proper quorum present.

37 posted on 07/17/2004 5:22:05 PM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park

Great publication, that.


38 posted on 07/17/2004 5:24:23 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

This is a bit out of my area, sorry.


39 posted on 07/17/2004 6:08:10 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"This is a bit out of my area, sorry."

Okay. I take it that as a debator, there is nothing in the Constitution vs Treaties for you to debate. As a matter of fact, I don't think there is either. Thanks for the reply.

40 posted on 07/17/2004 6:36:25 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
"I take it that as a debator, there is nothing in the Constitution vs Treaties for you to debate."

You take it wrong.

I can certainly offer an opinion, if that's what you want. But if I'm going to debate an issue, especially an issue I know little about, I'd rather research it first.

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to do so. Again, I'm sorry.

41 posted on 07/17/2004 6:55:53 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
"So you are a shill for the two john's!
A vote for anybody but President Bush is a vote for the two johns."

You know, I just completed my 50th birthday and I'm into my 51 first and for as long as I can remember I've been hearing both the republicans and democrats rant and rave over and over and over again on how they were gonna fix this that and the other thing. Yet everything keeps getting worse.

The republicans blame the democrats and the democrats blame the republicans, yet things keep getting worst.

The republican have control over both the executive and the house, yet things are getting worse.

Big government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger whether the repub's or demo's are in.

I grew up in New York and believed (rather falsely) that the democrats were the party to join and only vote in democrat candidates. Than I started to read the republican party platform and realized that small and frugal government is the only way to go. So about 30 or so years ago I switched to the republican party, but in the last 15 or so years my eyes opened up and I've seen government grow by leaps and bounds no matter which was in power.

I started to study the Constitution, declaration of independence, federalists / anti-federalists papers etc and I realized there's really no great difference between the two parties. The republicans and the democrats have been merging into what I call the republicrats.

The only way to get this Country back to the original intent of our founding fathers is to return to the original plans or blue print if you will.

People often say they'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils, but a vote for the lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL. That's like saying I'd rather vote for Hitler instead of Stalin.

The only way for a party like the Constitution party or Libertarian party or Patriot party, etc is going to become a threat to the status quo is for people like yourself to really take a hard look at the party your supporting and see if they're really doing what they've been chanting about all these decades. Is government shrinking or does it continue to expand? Is liberty winning or are our rights disappearing? Is spending under control and is the deficit shrinking or the other way around?

You have eyes, but you do not see.
Open your eyes.

42 posted on 07/17/2004 7:58:03 PM PDT by Mikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mikey

See #30


43 posted on 07/18/2004 2:45:05 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Liberals are like catfish ( all mouth and no brains )(bottom feeders))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
"Since this is absurd, the correct parsing must be #2"

SOM, It doesn't matter. As long as the weasels use "parsing" #1, the destruction of the U.S. of A. and it's constitution with its attendent amendments is inevitable. A nation under "men" {and only certain "men" at that; socialism} rather than a nation under the law. Peace and love, George.

44 posted on 07/18/2004 3:28:39 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY)"Initially, Senator Thomas' office told callers that the Senator had nothing to do with the ratification. On December 8, his office called to explain that Senator Thomas just happened to be on the Senate Floor late in the afternoon of October 18 -- and was asked by the leadership to handle procedurally, the package of treaties. Senator Thomas has asked the Foreign Relations Committee to explain how, and why, the Desertification Treaty was included in the package."
I, You might ask Senator Thomas. But, this seems to be SOP on such odious legislation. If you watch C-SPAN, there is seldom a quorum during evening business. And only if an intelligent trustworthy congresscritter {an oxymoron?} is present, is one called for a recorde vote. Peace and love, George.
45 posted on 07/18/2004 3:54:18 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
If you watch C-SPAN, there is seldom a quorum during evening business.

I know there are cases when there are only one or two Congressmen present when someone's making a speech about something, but I don't think any votes take place during such sessions. Do you know of any pieces of legislation or treaties or confirmations of appointments that were definitely, as a matter of record (official or unofficial) done with less than a quorum present?

46 posted on 07/18/2004 6:15:38 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
"No if they were semi-honest they would vote for the two johns. They will not because they hope to pull votes from the best man. If they would start smaller ( maybe dog catcher) they might get a few more votes."
HuntsvilleTxVeteran

Because of foolish statements from foolish blinded people like the one above, this Country will NEVER return to a Constitutional government. I fear we will end up under the whip of a global government because of the ignorance of people like HuntsvilleTxVeteran. They will gleefully bring it about by continuing to vote for the status quo.

People like HuntsvilleTxVeteran are what I call pseudo patriots. They wave the flag (made in China) and vote for the same old crowd always expecting different results (isn't that the definition of insanity), instead get the same old BS shoved down their throats and each time eating it all up.

I guess one can acquire a taste for BS after eating so much of it so that when the truth is placed upon their plate they get sickened by the sweet aroma, push the plate of truth away and search for the foul stench of BS.

Huntsville? How long where you in Huntsville and for what?

47 posted on 07/18/2004 7:52:59 AM PDT by Mikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mikey; TigersEye; sergeantdave; robertpaulsen; El Gato; SauronOfMordor; Jim Noble; ...
Pleased with the release of this article by Mr. Lamb, I am nevertheless sorely disappointed in his apparent lack of fact-checking:

"Bush immediately withdrew the U.S. signature from the International Criminal Court," reports Mr. Lamb. While that statement is true, it is not the whole truth. Sereantdave, you said, "Mr. Bush is slowly rolling back the UN fascist executive orders signed by Clinton." That statement is not true, but you are going on what you read in this article and have not seen evidence to the contrary, so you are not to be faulted.

The whole truth on the International Criminal Court and the U.S. signature on it is that the Bush Administration pulled a 180 in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and withdrew its request for immunity.

Read the whole truth here: International Criminal Court Opens --"Meanwhile, the United States has withdrawn a proposed United Nations resolution that would have extended immunity for its soldiers from war crimes prosecutions until June 2005. The current exemption expires at the end of this month. The U.S. request for immunity for its peacekeepers had been adopted by large margins the past two years. This time, however, Council members said attitudes had shifted because of international outrage at the abuse of detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison." And here: U.S. Withdraws International Criminal Court Exemption, June, 2004.

Sargeatdave, you also are incorrect in this statement: "I don't believe a treaty can rightfully trump or erase the constitution." A prime and recent example of the trumping of the U.S. Constitution by treaty lies in the case brought before the International Court of Justice, an arm of the United Nations, of 52 Mexican nationals held in U.S. prison on death row. The International Court of Justice *ordered* the United States to review the cases and found that the U.S. justice system was in error in failing to notify the accused of their "international right" to be informed of Consular Assistance when detained in a foreign country. Quote: "It is important to note that the decisions of the ICJ are binding on all States, regardless of their governmental structure, given that they are based on an international treaty to which the States have voluntarily agreed to adhere. The legal basis of the binding nature of these decisions is contained in the United Nations Charter which, in the first paragraph of Article 94, states that 'each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.'" That's us. We, the United States, are 'party' to the decisions of the ICJ because we have signed on to the Charter of the United Nations via treaty: "As a treaty, all signatories are bound by international law to obey the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization." We are subject now as well to the International Criminal Court, because we have, this June, withdrawn our request for immunity from that Court's jurisdiction.

As Jed Babbin, author of Inside the Asylum, wrote in a recent article on NRO entitled, "Can the U.N. Save Florida?", discussing the actions of some lawmakers in Washington *requesting* U.N. oversight of U.S. Federal elections, ""we cannot tolerate any U.N. intervention, for to so do would be to surrender our independence and most basic freedom." I reqret to inform you all that we are not only tolerating such intervention, we've entreated it.

robertpaulsen: for reseach.

Mikey, El Gato, SauronOfMordor, Jim Noble, William Terrell, inquest, greasepaint: FYI.

48 posted on 07/18/2004 7:59:03 AM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
The Supreme Court on the Constitution and treaties is here.

49 posted on 07/18/2004 8:06:35 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mikey
Very funny,
I have never been in a jail but an old neighbor asked
my sister in law where I was at.
She said Huntsville and the person said " What did he do?"

Could a cp or l win even a dog catcher election in a
mid sized town?
50 posted on 07/18/2004 8:10:24 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Liberals are like catfish ( all mouth and no brains )(bottom feeders))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson