How treaties trump the Constitution (a timely re-post & must read)

World Net Daily ^ | July 04 & 06 | Henry Lamb

[Carry_Okie]

That's pretty funny!! For some more laughs, why don't you explain again how US Treasury Bills are backed by water and mineral rights?

Wayne Hage went to his deathbed with that knowledge. His mastery of that subject is one reason why he won on his regulatory takings case in the US Court of Claims.

Go ahead, find me a substantial American-owned hard rock mining company operating in the American West. Just keep yucking it up while China drills of our coast while American companies can't. That deal isn't on paper either. Just keep laughing while Vivendi buys up water companies in California, while having curiously little difficulty getting permits.

Meanwhile, try, just for once, defending your bald faced and ignorant assertion with an example.

[Jack Black]

Yes, I'm thanking Ross. Now I didn't support Ross in his run in 1992 or 1996, and yes, I think we got Clinton because of him.

But it was Ross Perot who led the opposition to NAFTA, along with Pat Buchanan. Famously Gore "defeated" (in the lying-eyes of the legacy media) Ross Perot who argued the "Hell No" position on NAFTA.

It is my considered opinion that had not Perot and Buchanan mounted as loud an opposition as they did we would have NAFTA as a treaty. Because of the opposition they focused we ended up with only an "agreement". That is just more bad laws that are *not* the equal or slightly subordiate (depending on who's arguments on this thread you prefer) to the US Constitution, but rather just more bad crappy laws, like the other few thousand our brave citizen-legislatures have saddled us with in the last 50 years.

For that he deserves thanks.

[SAJ]

Where've you been, mate? Law student or not, this has already been done many times.

In the Constitution, there isn't even the faintest hint of what the social-justice (sic) attorneys call 'environmental' and/or 'human rights' ''law''. Correct me if wrong, but such a body of ''law'' would seem to be quite thoroughly established these days, eh?

Wonder how this happened, do you?

[SAJ]

Speaking only Constitutionally, there being exactly no provision in the document prohibiting secession, nor empowering the United States to block or inhibit secession, the 10th Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that is applicable to the question. The wording of the 10th is perfectly clear, postulating (dangerously) that the United States government intends to obey its own Constitution.

While I have always considered the secession of the states that later formed the Confederacy to have been rank idiocy, for at least 10 or a dozen separate reasons, the apodeictic fact of the matter is that such secession is fully within the Constitutional powers of the several states,

as the document was/is written.

[SAJ]

''Frequently''?

You shock me. Historically, one would tend to use the adverbial phrase ''almost invariably''.

[philman_36]

Politicians need to come clean with the American public - that's who they are responsible to.
You must believe in the impossible!
If the vast majority of our politicians elected representatives had any intention of "coming clean" this article wouldn't have needed to have been written in the first place.

All who are "politicians" aren't all elected to office. Sorry to seem so nit picking.

[philman_36]

...by the assorted vermin in the Senate.
Like this...
New U.N. treaty ratified quietly (U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification )
On December 8, his office called to explain that Senator Thomas just happened to be on the Senate Floor late in the afternoon (so, is like, 8:00pm, like, "late afternoon"? /valley girl) of October 18 -- and was asked by the leadership to handle procedurally, the package of treaties.
Snip...Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
Those raising their hand "just happened" to be there as well I suppose.

Which brings me back to my previous point above.

[philman_36]

The magic in Henry Lamb's article is that he does what so many of us are just incapable of doing! He bridges the gap between these arcane and cryptic treaties and how they come to effect us in a no longer "free country!"

Ping

[Apple Blossom]

Ping.

[Jim Noble]

Read about the Bricker Amendment.

This is an old story.

[Jim Noble]

My guess is that it was demanded by our creditors, those loving European nations that defined what constituted nationhood in order to loan us that money Mr. Hamilton wanted so desperately.

Yes, I think the nonwithstanding clause was written to reassure the rest of the world that the new, experimental government at Philadelphia could be relied on to keep its word.

The result is absurd, of course. A Constitution which is almost impossible to amend can be changed at will by the President and 2/3 of the Senate?

A treaty banning free speech is enforceable?

The Bricker Amendment debate covered a lot of this territory but couldn't be passed, even in the 1950s.

This will be an interesting ball to keep your eye on.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[redgolum]

For later.

[muawiyah]

Best to save "almost invariably" for individual Congress-critters. Otherwise you'd be using that all the time.

[Carry_Okie]

The result is absurd, of course. A Constitution which is almost impossible to amend can be changed at will by the President and 2/3 of the Senate?

Not even, 2/3 of "Senators present." When the Convention on Nature Protection was ratified, the Congressional Record contains no recount of a vote, a committe vote, or even a quorum. It's scary.

If you haven't read Hamilton's papering over of this detail in Federalist 75 in that light, it's worth the revisit.

[Carry_Okie]

BTW, thanks for the reference to the history of the Bricker amendment, yet another instance in which RINOs have been our downfall.

[bmwcyle]

Thanks dear but I already know this is how they will get rid of our Constitution.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wayne Hage went to his deathbed with that knowledge.

He took it with him? And now no one else can prove it? Interesting. Did the Feds kill him to keep their little secret?

Go ahead, find me a substantial American-owned hard rock mining company operating in the American West. Just keep yucking it up while China drills of our coast while American companies can't. That deal isn't on paper either. Just keep laughing while Vivendi buys up water companies in California, while having curiously little difficulty getting permits.

Interesting little factoids which have zero to do with US Treasury debt.

Meanwhile, try, just for once, defending your bald faced and ignorant assertion with an example.

My ignorant assertion? My assertion is that your assertion is wrong. Until you show something that proves water and mineral rights somehow collateralize our US Treasury debt, my assertion wins.

[1rudeboy]

Don't be puzzled. In order to believe that treaties trump the Constitution, one must (almost) necessarily believe that the Constitution authorizes treaties to trump itself. Ponder that for a moment.

[SierraWasp]

Ya know, Jack, when you look back at those two, Buchanan was nothing but a Nixon speech writer and Perot became a billionaire by building a Federal Milking Machine to milk LBJ's blank check to the nation's Doctors and computer administrators through Medicare, like Ross Perot's EDS.

Now as I look back on their "Reform Party" effort, I see a third pathetic party in the form of Jesse Ventura. Jesse stirred up his fellow actor in the "Predator" movie (Arnold Schwartzenegger) who now has totally screwed up the CAGOP and is binding CA's future in a mammoth bondage scheme!

Now Jack... I find NOTHING conservative, or enlightened in the history, or behaviors of ANY of these egomaniacle clowns. And I certain put NO stock in ANY of their theories or actions!!! To me, you are idolizing the wrong dudes somehow!!!