Posted on 06/04/2016 3:59:20 PM PDT by Twotone
With the new United Nations (UN) and federal government grand plan to steal what remains of our land through the ruse of ecosystem management, there is one grand daddy that will take all of Idaho in one fell swoop.
In 1944 the United States and Canada began talks to jointly manage the Columbia River which crossed the border. Both came to an agreement in 1961 creating a treaty that would provide flood control, generate hydropower, and meet irrigation needs. This treaty, known as the ColumbiaTreaty, was finalized in 1961 and implemented in 1964. Because the river crossed borders, called transboundary, it was also recognized as an “international treaty”.
In fact, the International Joint Commission (IJC), created from the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 to help with treaty negotiations, was involved with the Columbia Treaty. The IJC created the International Columbia River Engineering Board (ICREB) in 1944 to study the Columbia basin waters, soils, population, economics, hydrology, and existing dams, while considering “the basin as a whole, without regard for the international border.”
The agreement stipulated that Canada would provide water storage with dams, then be compensated for water release that generated hydropower. Although not specifically stated as a “basin” treaty, the treaty does reference the Columbia basin.
(Excerpt) Read more at idahoansforliberty.com ...
Does Larry Craig know about this?
The UN is the next Obama - with the world behind it.
It will take a very strong leader to stand up to this.
Later
If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
I read the article. Groups like the UN are deluded into thinking they can take over the U.S.A. So what are they going to do? Kill us all?
These kinds of projects and treaties no doubt cause massive tingles for bureaucrats. I do not think this will go anywhere except nowhere.
All depending on who is elected in 2016...
Too Easy
Hey UN “Get Stuffed!”
Go away, Bye, Have a Nice Day!
Or Else What?
What is Larry Craigs “stance” on this?
I wish Trump would boot the UN out of New York and turn the building into a luxury hotel.
The map indicates that the entirety of the Columbia watershed is, indeed, wide.
Patriots need to be on their guard concerning treaties. Thomas Jefferson, undoubtedly based on his experience as vice president and president of the Senate, had clarified that treaties must be reasonably based on powers which the states have delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution.
“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.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” — Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812 .
A more important example concerning limits on treaty powers comes from the Supreme Court. In fact, the Court reflected on Jefferson’s words, clarifying that Congress cannot use it’s power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor way to expand its constitutionally-limited powers.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added] [emphasis added].” — Reid v. Covert, 1956.
Regarding who controls what with respect to navigable rivers like the Columbia River, here’s Supreme Court clarification that the lands underlying navigable waters within the states belong to the states.
"Besides, it was settled long ago by this court, upon a consideration of the relative rights and powers of the Federal and state governments under the Constitution, that lands underlying navigable waters within the several states belong to the respective states in virtue of their sovereignty, …” — Scott v. Lattig, 1913.
Insights, corrections welcome.
Wide, appropriate when mentioning Larry Craig.
Insight: no previous Court can constrain any future Court.
Since no previous Court can constrain any future Court, that is why one of the essential issues that is addressed by an Article V Convention of the States must be how to restrain a Court that runs amok.
In my own state, we have “retention” elections for high court justices. The problem with lifetime tenure is that should a justice become hostile to liberty and the Constitution over time, as long as they don’t commit overt criminal acts the means to remove them from office present too high a bar.
We also must give the House a means of overriding a decision by the Court. Because this power should be used sparingly, I would propose a high super-majority. But the Senate no longer represents the interests of the States. The House is the body that is closest to the will of the People.
The government has grown to resent the chains of the Constitution and has engineered workarounds and circumventions. There are fewer and fewer peaceful means remaining to be exercised to restore the federal government to its right balance of relationship to the States and to the People. As it states in the Declaration of Independence, “Whenever Any Form of Government Becomes Destructive To These Ends,
It Is The Right of the People to Alter Or To Abolish It,
And To Institute New Government.”
We can do this the easy way or the hard way.
Bfl
UN is much easier
I suggest making them wear a Uniform ... Florescent Orange with a reflective white stripe right down the center and another horizontal about nipple high, or they can go home.
And the Blue Helmet
I respectfully disagree.
Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution by state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices should not trump previous clarifications of constitutional clauses by state sovereignty-respecting justices whose clarifications that are based on the Founding States' intentions for a clause.
And if the states don’t like the original intention for a clause then the states can amend the Constitution.
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.
