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.
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.
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.
See #30
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.
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.
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?
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?
"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.
Not constitutionally.
Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Eastbound wrote:
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.
______________________________________
Well put, Eastbound:
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
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 supremacy clause causes the US Constitution to be binding on the State Governments.
The States are restricted by the BOR because the supremacy clause binds the judges in every state to follow what's in the Constitution.
--- The BOR's and all Amendments are intergal parts of the Constitution... They therefore became restrictive on the States.
The 9th & 10th are clear.
The Ninth says that the peoples unemumerated rights cannot be denied or violated.
Thus the 10ths powers, both Federal, -- and those reserved to the States, -- cannot be used to violate the enumerated or unenumerated rights of the people.
Its possible and you won't know until you try. To keep voting for the status quo is going to get one the same old BS every time. Maybe your correct in your statement about starting at the bottom and working ones way up. Its that way in the job market, why not the same in the political arena.
On the local level I elect those who will follow the constitution. When we had our election for county sheriff I questioned each candidate and gave each a copy of the Constitution test to see what they know or didn't know about the document they were to swear an oath or affirmation too.
To simply shake ones head back and forth and make statements, 'they'll never win', "...pull votes from the best man", "lesser of two evils",etc, will do nothing but keep the status quo on both sides in power. Oh there'll be small little tid bits here and there thrown at the people to keep 'em happy, but major change will never come about until one day our Constitutional republic will be totally gone and the people who kept voting for the status quo will do exactly what they're doing now and that is blaming each other when instead they are both to blame.
"In appealing to the principles of Paquette Habana in a modern context, many of today’s activists have concluded that the most auspicious route to transforming domestic public policy is not through the law of nations generally, or through treaties, but through “customary international law,” a subcategory of the law of nations. That law, unlike treaties, has the advantage of being available for immediate use by judges in the absence of any affirmative acts of Congress or the President. Indeed, some more audacious scholars have already argued that customary international law is binding on American judges even in direct opposition to the wishes of the nation’s political branches. "
None of these SC decisions have been overturned by the Court and still remain locked in stare decisis; the last ruling was in 1955. There are other ways to get around this, of course, one of which is hinted at in the above paragraph. But to date, treaties are no more or less than equal to legislation, and cannot alter the constituion as laid out in past SC decisions.
If they don't, then their rulings must be regarded as illegitimate.
The international community, as it is called, is not in any way seeking to "alter" our U.S. Constitution--our own judges are doing that for them--they are seeking to override it. The U.N. and its courts have *already* been recognized as having powers which supercede our Constitution, as I pointed out in a previous post.
There are many good, logical and correct arguments posted on this thread . .
.. the problem lies in the fact that that the people making these good, logical and correct arguments are not sitting on the Supreme Court or in Congress.
(so the true question will be will those in these positions be strict constitutionalists and hold dear our founders intent?)
56 PersonalLiberties
______________________________________
If they don't, then their rulings must be regarded as illegitimate.
58 inquest
______________________________________
Depending of course, on who gets to define the 'intent' of the founders.
You will find, PL, that many here at FR have very odd views on 'original intent'.
Most can be best described as 'states rightists'.
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.