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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
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]

To: Yo-Yo

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

Ummm, beg pardon. Obamacare passed without it having been read.


51 posted on 06/15/2012 7:55:19 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (In Memphis on January 20, 2009, pump price were $1.49. We all know what happened after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: onetruelord
Yes this is an impeachable offense but we will barely hear a peep from the Republicans

Then maybe we'd better pester the Democrats about it.
And honestly if Fast & Furious has generated so little stir from the Republican-party, why should we expect any action about this?

52 posted on 06/15/2012 9:38:47 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701
Ummm, beg pardon. Obamacare passed without it having been read.

Ummm, you flunk reading comprehension. Did I not write:

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.

53 posted on 06/15/2012 9:46:22 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
...they won’t ratify what they can’t read.

"We have to pass the bill to know what's in it."
--Pelosi

54 posted on 06/15/2012 10:02:30 AM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Passed a health bill without reading it.


55 posted on 06/15/2012 10:05:48 AM PDT by pmac (From the lawless regions of Eastern Ca, next to free America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Errant
Unbelievable! This is an unmitigated, dastardly attempt to circumvent and subvert the Constitution of the United States.

What's sad is it is only the latest entry inn a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism...

56 posted on 06/15/2012 10:27:01 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation

Didn’t you learn anything from the Clinton era? The House votes to impeach, the Senate votes on guilt/innocence. Clinton was impeached by the house and found not guilty by the Senate. Hence, he remained in office as the Impeached POTUS.


57 posted on 06/15/2012 10:40:19 AM PDT by DeltaZulu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bgill
And add the latest offense of granting de facto amnesty to illegal aliens to the list!
58 posted on 06/15/2012 10:47:25 AM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

It’s going to depend upon America waking up and taking action before this usurper can complete his handler’s plans to seize power. Romney ain’t the answer; the people, their state, local governments, and national representatives are the answer.


59 posted on 06/15/2012 10:56:40 AM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Errant
Romney ain’t the answer; the people, their state, local governments, and national representatives are the answer.

Quite agreed. The prospect of a Romney presidency is... frightening.
I would rather have for more years of Obama; for the one simple reason that he polarizes his opposition and makes it relatively easy for them to stick together -- Romney however would not provide that, and we all know he will do nothing to reverse what bad policies either Obama or Bush* instituted.

* I blame Bush for the TSA and starting bailouts (remember the airlines, post 9-11).

60 posted on 06/15/2012 11:43:38 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 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