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.
Want to return to a Constitutional government? Than vote for Peroutka for president
ping
So you are a shill for the two john's!
A vote for anybody but President Bush is a vote for
the two johns.
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.
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.
=====================================
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.
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.
"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.
documenting our loss of sovereignty and the rise of the UN bump
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
BTTT
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
FMCDH(BITS)
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.
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.