The November election should harbor no ‘avowed’ environmentalists, animal rights people, or meddlesome people who want to control your life. Vote the Party of Common Sense – GOP businessmen and women who are not easily swayed by special interests and who understand economics and the need for a strong military.
The GOP is not part of the solution.
All the more reason for the American militia to remain fully armed.
Henry Lamb nails another one.
BumPing.
didn't Kyoto need to be ratified by the Senate?
Politicians need to come clean with the American public - that's who they are responsible to. If they want to cede their authority to unelected foreigners, the only thing to do is at least inform the citizenry of their aims.
Sounds scary! The only problem is, treaties don't trump the Constitution.
Treaties do not trump the Constitution; treaties become a part of the constitution.
The big problems with environment regulations aren't due to treaties -- although treaties certainly can be terrible.
The REAL problem is that at least since the days of the New Deal, the federal courts have allowed expansive interpretations of the Constitution's "commerce clause."
And remember that it only takes 51% majority votes in Congress to pass wacky environmental laws that are "justified" as regulations upon interstate commerce.
So if the environmental wackos have a nutty environmental idea that commands 51% of the votes in the House and Senate, plus acquiescence by POTUS, why would they ever want to wait for a treaty -- which would always face the much higher obstacle of a 2/3 Senate vote?
From the text there are three things specified as being the "supreme Law of the Land"
1. This Constitution
2. the Laws of the United States
3. all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States
"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"
From the wording, it sounds like a treaty is not constrained by the Constitution, which seems a bit bizarre to me. Perhaps se need an Amendment to correct this.
At least treaties have to be ratified by Congress, not just signed by the President I think.
I believe it was President George WASHINGTON that warned America in his farwell address... "Beware of entangling alliances and treaties." That, from THE founding father of our country!!!
I'm no expert in treaties, but here you go:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. Also see Marbury v. Madison, 1801.
Treaties are legislation, nothing more. The constitution may be changed only through the amendment process.
And I have yet to read a court ruling that abrogates our rights using a treaty as justification. Perhaps someone will come along and prove me wrong.
That the federal bureaucracy (executive branch) and courts are illegally amending the constitution and ignoring our rights is provable and a fact.
ping
Wolves, panthers and bears are always a welcome addition in communities overrun with white tailed deer.
.
Your article is in error. The SCOTUS has held that the Commerce Clause give the legislature authority to regulate transactions within states, because they could, at any time, become interstate transactions.
Scalito had a great dissent recently... "(some little frog) for reasons of it's own, spends its entire life within the state of California..."
Still, that is the legal justification for regulation of wildlife, regulation of Marijuana, regulation of firearms.
ping
Bump for later!
Ping.
For later.
