How treaties trump the Constitution

World Net Daily ^ | July 17, 2004 | Henry Lamb

[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.

[inquest]

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.

[William Terrell]

"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)

[Jim Noble]

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.

[Eastbound]

"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.

[Eastbound]

FYI

[Eastbound]

Meant to ping you too.

[Eastbound]

Bump to # 24

[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.

[Eastbound]

Wanna apply your skills over here? ;>

[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.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

".....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.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

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.

[SauronOfMordor]

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

[Eastbound]

"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?

[Eastbound]

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

[El Gato]

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.

[inquest]

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.

[Libertina]

Great publication, that.

[robertpaulsen]

This is a bit out of my area, sorry.

[Eastbound]

"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.