Skip to comments.The Supreme Court Could Be Ruling On The Safety Of All American Rights
Posted on 11/01/2013 6:35:47 AM PDT by EBH
On more than one occasion President Barack Obama or a top Administration official has lamented that the Commander in Chief is not a king or a dictator and is, therefore, unable to ram his progressive policies down the greater American publics collective throat as quickly as his liberal supporters would like. And on several occasions, the sole hurdle halting the President in his dash toward liberal utopiaor totalitarian hell, depending on whom you ask has been a pesky 226-year-old document called the Constitution of the United States of America.
But the Obama Justice Department is working to change that.
Attorneys at the Justice Department are currently working to advance a Supreme Court argument that the Federal government should be allowed to invoke international treaties as legal basis for policies that government officials are unable to put into place because they conflict with the Nations Constitution.
The Supreme Court is slated to begin hearing oral arguments in United States v Bond early next month a case in which the court will determine,...
... In short, United States v Bond concerns a woman poisoning her husbands mistress and, in doing so, violating the international ban on chemical weapons. Per the Constitution, the woman should be prosecuted at the State level but the Federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
That is the same Act that Syrian Dictator Bashir al-Assad is a accused of violating and is the justification that many war-hungry politicians recently used as basis for a military attack on the Syrian government.
The Constitutional question is whether the Federal government can use treaties that Congress has ratified as Federal policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at personalliberty.com ...
Would be nice if we had some kind of interactive map and ticker website for all of the latest government assaults on civil rights.
Roberts will be getting a call soon from his handlers in the administration.
That is what frightens me too.
We already know he is prone to blackmail, we watched that once already.
0bama has a bunch of lefties on the court and Roberts in his pocket, so you may address him as "Your Excellency", peasant!
I have wondered what they have on him. Is he gay? is it the two adopted daughters from Ireland? what?
Well, the case is Bond v. United States, not the other way around. And the law in question is not a treaty, nor was it used to gain compliance from al-Assad.
“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” - Claire Wolfe.
Don’t forget that the Bush Clan was all for this sort of international agreement.
The repub-e are as progressive as the dims.
A lot of people wonder what they ‘have’ on Roberts, given his (imo) nonsensical ruling on 0care.
But I would say he and anyone else who is blackmailed should at least step down for the good of the country. It’s the honorable thing to do. As far as money, he can always write a ‘tell-all’ book or something.
Even Hillary! makes money on selling books.
The shooting needs to start...
A treaty is not "the supreme Law of the Land" unless it is made "under the Authority of the United States." In other words, the United States must have the explicit Constitutional authority to do what the treaty requires or permits it to do. A lawful treaty certainly may not authorize or require the United States to do what the Constitution forbids.
Otherwise, a treaty would be equivalent to an Amendment to the Constitution--which requires a two thirds vote of the House and the Senate, and ratification by 3/4ths of the State legislatures. It makes no sense for treaties to require far less approval than Constitutional Amendments, if the Framers had intended treaties to have the same authority as the Constitution itself.
Such an interpretation would have the effect of rendering the limitations on the power of the Federal government found in the Constitution essentially meaningless.
As Alexander Hamilton explained: "If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed." ~ Federalist #33
Thomas Jefferson made the same point specifically in reference to treaties: In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. ~ The writings of Thomas Jefferson: being his autobiography ..., Volume 9, page 181
Jefferson also said: Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." ~ A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, p. 110. 1873.
The current law of the land, per the Supreme Court, is that "constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty." ~ Reid v. Covert
>>The current law of the land, per the Supreme Court, is that “constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty.” ~ Reid v. Covert <<
Isn’t it settled law? So why is the regime fighting it?
Perhaps they know something we don't, if you catch my drift.
This is why a conservative POTUS must take the humbling initiative to work with a conservative congress to make the office of the POTUS *less* powerful.
It would take a conservative POTUS with a huge amount of intestinal fortitude to do this. The default is the egotistical assumption that “I am superior enough to be able to use the power wisely!”, which is *never* the case.
Ever since George Washington, presidents have been continually trying to amass more power, if gradually. Eventually there was no way they could do this constitutionally, so they had to subvert the constitution. And not a single one of them even tried to surrender unconstitutional power once they had it.
Among the top powers that need to be stripped from the presidency:
1) The Presidential Signing Statement to bills passed by congress, that takes powers from both the legislative and judicial branches, is by far the most unconstitutional act.
2) The Presidential Proclamation was turned from an unimportant ceremonial statement to the means by which presidents have taken vast amounts of state lands that need to be returned.
3) All treaties are treaties. Presidents have taken to modifying treaties and to signing “sub-treaty” agreements without the approval of the senate. This must end. Presidents should be precluded from signing a treaty, even conditionally, until it is approved by the senate.
4) The War Powers Act and the Posse Comitatus Act need to be restored to their full power. The endless number of contingency plans, created by presidents, giving them the authority to seize absolute power in an emergency, must end, and any future plans must be approved by congress, or are invalid.
5) Other bad presidential acts that need changing include, but are not limited to: the creation of “czars”, a lack of parameters to “executive privilege”, contempt of congress by cabinet officers and bureaucrats, recess appointments, LOTS of budgetary matters, etc.
If you like your rights, you will be able to keep your rights. Period.
If you like your sovereignty, you will be able to keep your sovereignty. Period.
No one will take them away. No matter what.
Revolt is coming.
“.....too early to shoot the bastards.
It’s never too late and I would not be surprised if it began happening at anytime in the near future.
What good is a Constitution and it amendment process if a treaty trumps it..government would be able to bypass a Constitution at will by simple signing treats. .consider. .Obama signs a treaty it a hate crime to be critical of a black leader
Small battle really, something under the radar for the moment. Now consider they rule this as favorable to the prosecution, what then does that ruling influence in regards to the UN Gun Treaty....?
Not any more. It's getting closer to the flash point as we speak. the question is not “if”; the questions are “when” and “who”.
As Captain John Parker said at Lexington Common on April 19, 1775: “Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
Includes discussion of The Bricker amendment:
... proposed by North Carolina 165 years earlier. When other states were demanding a Bill of Rights in the federal constitution, North Carolina demanded an amendment that would say
...nor shall any treaty be valid which is contradictory to the Constitution of the United States.