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

Skip to comments.

Treaty Negotiated In Secret Hidden Even from Congressmen Who Oversee Treaties...
Zero Hedge ^ | 06/14/2012 | George Washington

Posted on 06/14/2012 7:25:28 PM PDT by Errant

The normally-reserved Yves Smith asks whether Obama should be impeached over it.

Democratic Senator Wyden – the head of the committee which is supposed to oversee it – is so furious about the lack of access that he has introduced legislation to force disclosure.

Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is so upset by it that he has leaked a document on his website to show what’s going on.

What is everyone so furious about?

An international treaty being negotiated in secret which would not only crack down on Internet privacy much more than SOPA or ACTA, but would actually destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. and all other signatories.

(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 2012; bhofascism; bhotreason; bhotyranny; bloodoftyrants; corruptionsupreme; cwii; dnctreason; elections; goptreason; govtabuse; imaminside; impeach; issa; killcommunism; lping; marxistbastard; misprisionoffelony; noaccountability; nobirthcertificate; noconstitution; nodocumentation; nojustice; obama; obamatruthfile; rapeofliberty; socialistdemocrats; treason; treaty; ttp; tyranny; tyrantobama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
Unbelievable! This is an unmitigated, dastardly attempt to circumvent and subvert the Constitution of the United States.

Add this to the growing list of impeachable offenses by the Obama Administration.

Video report also at link.

1 posted on 06/14/2012 7:25:47 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Complete title:

Treaty Negotiated In Secret – Hidden Even from Congressmen Who Oversee Treaties – Threatens to Destroy National Sovereignty

2 posted on 06/14/2012 7:27:04 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

I doubt the lily-white cowards in Congress will do little more than huff-and-puff about this—Don’t want to be called racists by the MSM, y’know.


3 posted on 06/14/2012 7:29:23 PM PDT by Arm_Bears (Journalists first; then lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

This is illegal for sure. Now does Congress have the balls to stand up to the president and his comrades?


4 posted on 06/14/2012 7:29:43 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

It just goes on and on.


5 posted on 06/14/2012 7:31:01 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Errant

This is treason by a hard core communists. Impeachment must be started by the House and no delay. Must be started within a few weeks.


6 posted on 06/14/2012 7:35:04 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Errant

I don’t trust Democracy Now!

Is there a better source somewhere?


8 posted on 06/14/2012 7:37:58 PM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant
" . . . growing list of impeachable offenses . . . "

So what's the magic number he has to reach before he's elected dictator for life?

9 posted on 06/14/2012 7:41:59 PM PDT by Eastbound (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant
" . . . growing list of impeachable offenses . . . "

So what's the magic number he has to reach before he's elected dictator for life?

10 posted on 06/14/2012 7:42:24 PM PDT by Eastbound (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant
the boy has GOT to go...


11 posted on 06/14/2012 7:43:04 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Holy cow. From the libtard comments on the site......they are pi$$ed!

Same with the leak the other day from HuffPoo about Obama globalizing and protecting corporations.


12 posted on 06/14/2012 7:45:25 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Wings cannot be redistributed, they can only be broken. ~ Oleg Atbashian (People's Cube))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
Is there a better source somewhere?

Link to document mentioned on Issa's webpage: Issa Releases the Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter on KeepTheWebOPEN.com

At least that exits, as mentioned in the report.

13 posted on 06/14/2012 7:46:09 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Errant
Issa is so upset by it that he has leaked a document on his website to show what’s going on.

SO IMPEACH THE POS ISSA...

14 posted on 06/14/2012 7:48:57 PM PDT by Doogle (((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: potlatch; PhilDragoo; bitt

Latest outrage ping.


15 posted on 06/14/2012 7:49:46 PM PDT by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

The U.S. Senate still have to ratify any treaty with a 2/3 majority vote.

Zero can negotiate in secret all he wants, but the Senate still has to ratify it, and they won’t ratify what they can’t read.


16 posted on 06/14/2012 7:55:11 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doogle

SO IMPEACH THE POS ISSA...
____________________________________________________

Hear, hear!!!!!!!


17 posted on 06/14/2012 7:58:02 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Wings cannot be redistributed, they can only be broken. ~ Oleg Atbashian (People's Cube))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

But you are right to not trust them, as they’re indirectly funded by Soros. Doesn’t make sense that they would be exposing this unless these Progressives and Democrats are upset at Obama enough to throw him “under the bus.”


18 posted on 06/14/2012 8:06:45 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

See the video as it goes into detail. I can’t believe this is from Democracy Now. They sound more like Real News on GBTV.


19 posted on 06/14/2012 8:10:58 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

“I don’t trust Democracy Now!

Is there a better source somewhere?”


Yeah, there’s this thing called a Republic although it isn’t a guarantee against widespread evil at the top of a government.


20 posted on 06/14/2012 8:11:21 PM PDT by Rembrandt (Part of the 52% who pay Federal taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

If this is advertised then I suspect it will be implemented without any input from Congress, an Executive Agreement, as it were. Soon we will possibly have a similar momen twhen the USSC announces its Obamacare overturn. Either the kenyan will paraphrase President Jackson-”Justice Marahall has made his decision, now let him enforce it,” or he will simply ignore the court and begin to implement and enforce Obamacare contra the Court.


21 posted on 06/14/2012 8:20:51 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

“Now does Congress have the balls to stand up to the president and his comrades?”

Uh, the answer would be NO. They wouldn’t want to be perceived as racist, would they?


22 posted on 06/14/2012 8:21:56 PM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

The quoted Prof. Peter Dale Scott is a leftwing wacko. Very anti-internal security and was a supporter of the old Communist Party USA front, the National Committee to Abolish HUAC/HISC, among other groups.

I wonder why he is upset about this issue? Hmm, something is rotten and it’s not in Denmark.


23 posted on 06/14/2012 8:27:44 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Errant; TheOldLady; netmilsmom; tomdavidd; Freeper; Gvl_M3; Flotsam_Jetsome; Berlin_Freeper; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Treaty Negotiated In Secret – Hidden Even from Congressmen Who Oversee Treaties

24 posted on 06/14/2012 8:34:51 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Maybe some of the democrats who support Hillary want to help Berry lose in November. If Berry stays another four years he will make it impossible for a democrat to win in 2016. I only hope they bring down the entire party with their infighting.


25 posted on 06/14/2012 8:48:51 PM PDT by peeps36 (America is being destroyed by filthy traitors in the political establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Doogle

I believe only the Senate can vote to impeach a president.

Since Issa is a member of the House of Representatives, he has no ability to commence impeachment.

And since the Senate is controlled by democrats, there is no chance they will impeach Obummer.


26 posted on 06/14/2012 8:50:26 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (The TEA Party is my cup of tea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation
Since Issa is a member of the House of Representatives, he has no ability to commence impeachment.

The House is responsible for bringing articles of impeachment -- for any federal officer. Essentially, they serve as a grand jury.

The Senate is then responsible for convicting the federal officer. They act as a trial jury.

27 posted on 06/14/2012 8:57:00 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation

I guess that you missed that event when the House of Representatives IMPEACHED President Clinton just a few years ago? My how time flies...

The Senate holds the TRIAL after a President is IMPEACHED by the House, where Clinton was found ‘NOT Guilty’. In fact, the Senate can not hold a trial until a President has been IMPEACHED by the House of Representatives.

Glad to help you out with your mis-understanding...

dvwjr


28 posted on 06/14/2012 9:00:04 PM PDT by dvwjr (Gallup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

“and they won’t ratify what they can’t read.”

Well, they did something like that before...but I don’t think they will fall for it again.


29 posted on 06/14/2012 9:03:49 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RushIsMyTeddyBear
[Holy cow. From the libtard comments on the site......they are pi$$ed!]

The unions will hate it because they won't be able to organize the workers in these industries and management can pay the lowest wages the market will bear.

The tree huggers will see the treaty leading to the proliferation of unregulated heavy(smokestack)industry.

Trial lawyers won't have any jurisdiction to file suits against these entities.

30 posted on 06/14/2012 9:16:06 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr

I stand corrected.

In my defense, I admit to trying to forget the Clinton years as much as possible.

Seeing as how Boehner and his buds in the House have no backbone, I can’t see impeachment gaining any traction in the House, even though Obama deserves it for so many reasons.


31 posted on 06/14/2012 9:18:23 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (The TEA Party is my cup of tea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Thank-you for posting.

I just wish there were more House members with an “R” after their names who had some backbone.


32 posted on 06/14/2012 9:23:28 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (The TEA Party is my cup of tea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Oregon PING


33 posted on 06/14/2012 9:27:12 PM PDT by goodnesswins (What has happened to America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono

“It just goes on and on.”

Ad nauseum! Just when you think the most dastardly of things has occurred, there’s tomorrow’s.

November, faster please.


34 posted on 06/14/2012 9:31:31 PM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation

“I believe only the Senate can vote to impeach a president.”

That is not correct — the House votes to impeach, the resulting trial is held by the Senate. So he could be impeached, but not convicted.


35 posted on 06/14/2012 9:36:49 PM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

You are being naive...”they won’t ratify what they can’t read.” Are you serious?

You seem to have forgotten...”You’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it.”

They don’t have to read squat, to pass anything....


36 posted on 06/14/2012 9:52:26 PM PDT by Herodes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
This is illegal for sure.

You could use a little education. Allow me to quote from the linked article:

Accurate and comprehensive knowledge of foreign politics; a steady and systematic adherence to the same views; a nice and uniform sensibility to national character; decision, secrecy [emphasis in the original!!! -ED], and despatch [sic], are incompatible with the genius of a body so variable and so numerous.[snip]

The person quoted was Alexander Hamilton discussing the negotiation of treaties in Federalist 75 and the necessity of keeping the House of Representatives out of the loop in the process of negotiation.

37 posted on 06/14/2012 10:19:20 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
The U.S. Senate still have to ratify any treaty with a 2/3 majority vote.

Wrongo! Article 2, section 2, clause 2 specifies that a treaty is ratified "provided two thirds of Senators present concur." That means 34 is the legal minimum for ratification with a bare quorum, but then treaties have been ratified with no record of a quorum or committee vote.

Might I suggest a little light reading on the topic?

38 posted on 06/14/2012 10:24:01 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Placemark.


39 posted on 06/14/2012 10:43:51 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Things have changed since then. Congress has the oversight responsibilty of these treaties taking place. So therefore obamma and his comrades are refusing oversight from taking place as the law allows to happen.

Funny thing is that obamma has to get this treaty that he negoitated in secret, approved by the Senate, which at this time probably will not happen now. Yea!


40 posted on 06/14/2012 10:52:14 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Things have changed since then.

Show me the Constitutional Amendment.

Congress has the oversight responsibilty of these treaties taking place.

Nonsense. Presidents negotiate treaties. The Senate ratifies them. Now, there is an ILLEGAL process that the US respects as a matter of "customary international law," but it is still within the purvey of the administrative branch. Worse, under this new illegal system, a treaty carries considerable power at the moment of signature, not requiring ratification.

Better read that article. It is quite up to date.

41 posted on 06/14/2012 10:58:19 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Errant

We The People are completely out of the loop...again.


42 posted on 06/14/2012 11:21:45 PM PDT by Crucial (Tolerance at the expense of equal treatment is the path to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Bfl


43 posted on 06/15/2012 12:13:42 AM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Only a stalwart few. The rest are traitors or capons..


44 posted on 06/15/2012 1:28:22 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

No.


45 posted on 06/15/2012 1:56:55 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Options for ratification:

1) “Deem” it ratified

2) We need to ratify it to see whats in it


46 posted on 06/15/2012 3:39:40 AM PDT by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Doesn’t matter HOW it was negotiated, it still has to be approved by the Senate. If the Senate says no, that’s it.


47 posted on 06/15/2012 4:07:24 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
That means 34 is the legal minimum for ratification with a bare quorum, but then treaties have been ratified with no record of a quorum or committee vote.

So now the consipracy extends beyond Zero negotating in secret to getting a midnight voice vote when nobody is looking?

Wake me when that happens, and I'll grab my rifle and meet you on the front lines so we can provide our own veto vote.

Yeah, the "we have to pass it to read what's in it" happened before, but it was fully televised, everybody knew who was shoving it down our throats, and they paid the price by losing the House, and only 8 out of 13 Democratic Senators were re-elected in 2010.

48 posted on 06/15/2012 4:14:51 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Hussein has said he wants to make the laws himself rather than deal with Congress. He doesn’t need Congress or the Constitution. With Congress and SCOTUS “evading” every issue, they’ve given him free reign. Heil, Hussein!


49 posted on 06/15/2012 5:37:31 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
So now the consipracy extends beyond Zero negotating in secret to getting a midnight voice vote when nobody is looking?

I can see already you didn't read the article at the link. The plan to use treaty law to reshape the Constitution without amendment was a dirty deal before the Constitution was even ratified.

50 posted on 06/15/2012 5:56:55 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 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