Obama to Cede US Sovereignty in December

[MACHINEGUN]

Troll!

 

[4sarge]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

I stopped reading after this because it is a true and utter falsity. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any treaty is subject to that law. There have been several cases in which a treaty has been challenged on constitutional grounds and SCOTUS has held that the treaty is subject to Constitutional protections. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. 33 For example, [***1164] in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [*18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." Id. at 1231.

Treaties vs. The Constitution (a MUST-READ)

by Albert V. Burns
December 12, 2002

Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Emphasis added.)...

The phrase: "...shall be the supreme Law of the Land", has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that treaties supersede the Constitution itself — that our rights of freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, right to keep and bear arms, etc. can be changed or even abolished by a treaty.


The first such Supreme Court "interpretation" took place in 1796! In that case, (Ware vs. Hylton), the Court upheld the taking of private property without "due process" because of a treaty with Great Britain.

In 1920, (Missouri vs. Holland), the Supreme Court decided that powers, reserved by Amendment 10 to the States or the people, could be transferred to the federal government by a treaty, in other words, a direct REVERSAL of the intent of the Tenth Amendment.

The Constitution expressly provides that the President can make treaties, only with the advice and consent of two thirds of the Senators present at the time a vote on a treaty is taken. Theoretically, this provides some protection against the rights of the American people being bargained away. At least when the debate came before the Senate, the people would have an opportunity to make their wishes known to their Senators. Binding secret agreements would not be possible.

Unfortunately, in 1942, (United States vs. Pink), the Supreme Court EXTENDED the concept that treaties over-ride the Constitution to include "executive agreements" made unilaterally by the President, or even agreements made in the NAME of the President by someone else in the executive branch of the federal government. The Court held that an "agreement" between President Roosevelt and the Russian Foreign Minister over-rode the provisions of New York State law and of the U.S. Constitution itself. The dire consequences of that decision cannot be over-exaggerated!
The inspired men who wrote the Constitution planned that the Constitution could be amended solely with the by vote of two thirds of each house of the Congress and then with the consent of THREE FOURTHS of the States. Effectively, the earlier decision of the Court meant that the necessary approval of changes to the Constitution has been changed from 3/4 of the STATES to only two thirds of the Senators present when a treaty ratification vote was to be made.
Under the 1942 decision, the requirement for oversight or approval of changes to the Constitution was REMOVED ENTIRELY! Now, one man, the President, or even someone representing him, can make an agreement with a foreign power or international body. According to the Supreme Court, such an agreement could modify or possibly even nullify our Constitution! This can be done without the approval or even the knowledge of the Senate or of the American people as a whole.

In 1954, the U.S. Senate held hearings on the "Bricker Amendment", a proposed amendment to the Constitution to close this "backdoor" method of changing the Constitution. During those hearings, it was disclosed that up until that time, 48 YEARS AGO, over 10,000 executive agreements had been negotiated with regard to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alone! A large number of those agreements were, AND STILL ARE, secret from the American people, yet they all, potentially, have the power to negate the U.S. Constitution.

How many other secret executive agreements have been made, with other international bodies, is information not available to American citizens. Obviously, the foreign powers and/or international bodies know about such agreements since they are party to them. They are only kept from the knowledge of the American people! Every rational and reasonable American should ask: "WHY are they afraid to tell US?"

Our Founding Fathers did everything in their power to guarantee that those rights would never be infringed upon by government. Unfortunately, they could not have foreseen how venal politicians and Supreme Court judges (to put the most charitable interpretation upon their actions) would twist the clear meaning of the Constitution to suit their own evil purposes.

I mentioned the "Bricker Amendment" which had been proposed in 1954 by Senator John Bricker as a means to positively stop the "backdoor" methods which were being used to corrupt and negate the U.S. Constitution. This amendment would have protected the Constitution and the rights of American citizens from assault by treaties or executive agreements.

The FULL text of the Bricker Amendment read:
"Section 1. A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with this Constitution, or which is not made in pursuance thereof, shall not be the supreme law of the land nor be of any force or effect."
"Section 2. A provision of a treaty or other international agreement shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation valid in the absence of international agreement.

"Section 3. On the question of advising and consenting to the ratification of a treaty, the vote shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against shall be entered on the Journal of the Senate."
This would have been an eminently sensible and simple approach to solving the problem. Yet President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles opposed the Bricker Amendment with the full power of their offices. They twisted arms, called in favors owed to them, and generally moved Heaven and earth to oppose this amendment. The amendment failed to pass the Senate by ONE vote!
Today, 48 years later, the threat is even GREATER than it was in 1954. We MUST close this "back door" to changing the Constitution.

I, finally, relocated a book which I bought many years ago. It had been written by a lawyer who did an exhaustive study of the problem of treaties vs. the Constitution. In 1955, he wrote this book with that title: Treaties Versus The Constitution. I checked with the publisher and found that the book has been out of print for many, many years. They told me that they had released the copyright back to the author in 1969. An internet search on the author's name turned up the fact that he had died in 1995. A check with the Library of Congress indicates that the copyright STILL is listed in his name. I am distributing the book in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.
I believe that it is IMPERATIVE that this book be given the widest possible distribution. I am sure that the Insiders have confidently believed that it had been "safely" consigned to George Orwell's "Memory Hole." If we can get enough concerned people to read and then re- distribute this booklet, maybe we will be able to get one or more Congress critters to re- introduce an amendment to close this door.

 

[4sarge]

Well I'm glad to hear that you'll take his opinion over mine. I'd be even happier if you'd read the document in question and form your OWN opinion rather than simply believing him because he's "an expert." If YOU can point out to me where in that document it says we're doing anything other than committing to some guideliness for reducing climate change and providing money (which I don't agree with) in order to help developing countries in this endeavor, then I may agree as well. Call me crazy but I'd rather read it myself and make my own decision, right or wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you posted this article because it's always good to be vigilant. I just think we need to read it for what it is rather than summise that this is the end of U.S. sovereignty as we know it.

Yes, call me crazy but I'm taking his interpretation over yours unless you have verifiable scientific or legal credentials superior to that of Lord Monckton

 

[jsharmon7]

Yes, call me crazy but I'm taking his interpretation over yours unless you have verifiable scientific or legal credentials superior to that of Lord Monckton

You keep missing the point, 4sarge. Right or wrong, at least I'M reading this document and deciding for myself before I get worried into a tizzy over the opinion of someone I've never met simply because "he's an expert." In fact, I don't want you to believe or not believe my interpretation either because that, too, would be completely missing the point. A reasonable person looks at the facts to make a decision rather than saying "oh he's an expert so whatever his thoughts are on this document must be the Holy Grail." If you've done that and agree with Monckton, then you and I simply disagree on this topic. I just don't see anything in this document that means we're ceding our sovereignty and joining some new world order. So far no one has pointed anything out from the text that clearly states that either.

Again, thank you for posting the OP as it is certainly interesting regardless of whether you believe Monckton or not.

 

[Radtgaeb]

Pretty spooky stuff.

Molon lave, gentlemen. Molon lave.

 

[ATM]

...No more overseas steel...

I must admit, I'd be personally OK with this.

 

[USMC_0311]

WTF...4Sarge is a Troll....????
All this time? Say it aint so...

 

[4sarge]

You keep missing the point, 4sarge. Right or wrong, at least I'M reading this document and deciding for myself before I get worried into a tizzy over the opinion of someone I've never met simply because "he's an expert." In fact, I don't want you to believe or not believe my interpretation either because that, too, would be completely missing the point. A reasonable person looks at the facts to make a decision rather than saying "oh he's an expert so whatever his thoughts are on this document must be the Holy Grail." If you've done that and agree with Monckton, then you and I simply disagree on this topic. I just don't see anything in this document that means we're ceding our sovereignty and joining some new world order. So far no one has pointed anything out from the text that clearly states that either.

Again, thank you for posting the OP as it is certainly interesting regardless of whether you believe Monckton or not.

Yes, I did read it but the whole point of my contention is two fold; ceding US Sovereignty to a group of nations rather than to "Our" elected officials (we the people) who should be following the US Constitution and the whole Global Warming BS which now has been changed to Climate Change because the Earth is cooling Not growing warmer.

As a footnote "Our" elected officials have been selling us out for many years, Dem's and Republicans alike.

Just a few months ago the hue and cry was over the Clinton Mexican Treaty that Eric Holder and the Obama Administration was promoting. That treaty would have imposed severe restrictions and sanctions on "Our" 2nd Amendment Rights but is currently on the back burner.

United States Sovereignty: We the People

What is a threat to United States sovereignty? We need to have a clear idea what sovereignty is before we can answer the question. In general terms, we understand sovereignty to mean a nation's independence from other governments, and its freedom of choice to act politically. In history, there are many examples of sovereignty concentrated in a single ruler like the tsar-autocrats of Russia, or the French King Louis XIV, who declared, "I am the state." But states today have elaborate procedures that decentralize their sovereignty, for example, through periodic elections, independent courts, etc. For a constitutional republic like the United States, our sovereignty also includes an important central element described in the phrase, "Congress shall make no law.... "

We reject the idea that a king is sovereign, and we reject the idea that a few hundred congressmen in Washington are sovereign, even if we do have a right to vote for some of them. We say "the people are sovereign," and in a society based on individual rights this is more than a slogan. The U.S. Constitution makes its clearest general statement of popular sovereignty in the Bill of Rights, Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Sovereignty includes not only our right to feel safe against a foreign army's invasion and to vote for those who make our laws, but it also touches a family's daily economic life, the right to own property, and to work and invest in private businesses. A large part of our sovereign "independence from government and freedom of choice to act politically" comes from the decentralized power of a free market economy. Popular political movements rely on fund raising and volunteers, who need the economic independence only a competitive capitalist economy provides. Democracy depends on a free market economic system, which in turn is based on consumer sovereignty, which is really "voting with dollars" for our favorite products and services. American political sovereignty is necessarily tied to the people's right to sell or buy whatever they find useful.

Goodbye U.S. sovereignty, hello globalocracy

By Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media

With the nomination of Harold Hongju Koh, the Dean of Yale Law School, as the Legal Adviser for the State Department, President Barack Obama is putting a world government team in place under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The other key appointment was Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, as Director of Policy Planning at State. Slaughter wrote the 2004 book, A New World Order, and believes in an international system dominated by the U.N. and other global institutions and networks.


Some conservatives in the media have been pointing out that Koh has extremely radical views that seem to subordinate U.S. laws and the U.S. Constitution to so-called [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]international [COLOR=blue !important]law[/color][/color][/color]. Some say he even would allow the application of Islamic Shariah law in the U.S. But the conservative media focus on Koh’s controversial and disputed comments about Shariah miss the point.

Based on his public statements, one has to conclude that Koh believes in a world government financed by global taxes. This is the huge issue that the media should bring to the fore. America’s future as a sovereign nation is at stake.

Koh’s acknowledged mentor was Harvard Law Professor and [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]international [COLOR=blue !important]lawyer[/color][/color][/color]

Louis B. Sohn, who was not only a key author of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), now waiting for Senate ratification, but offered a detailed proposal to transform the United Nations into a world government in his book, World Peace Through World Law.


The fancy academic titles and affiliations sound impressive. But even a casual reading of Sohn’s views would conclude that he was a dangerous crackpot.

Sohn said that he wanted this world government to maintain hundreds of thousands of troops, military bases, and be armed with nuclear weapons. The purpose, he said, would be to disarm “each and every nation and to deter or suppress any attempted international violence.” This “world authority” would also require a “United Nations Revenue System,” drawing taxes from “each nation” of the world, he said.

The term “world government” is too benign for what Sohn proposed. The term “global dictatorship” would be more appropriate. But this is the direction that Koh apparently would take us.

Koh, who served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the Clinton Administration, referred to Sohn during an October 24, 2006, George Washington University Law School tribute as “my grandfather in the law” because Koh, his sister, and his father had all studied under “his watchful eye.”

In an essay based on his remarks, Koh explained that “In a dazzling range of areas?including arms control, the law of the sea, the law of state responsibility, the law of international organizations, international [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]environmental [COLOR=blue !important]law[/color][/color][/color], and international dispute resolution?Louis helped draft global ‘constitutions’ that sought both to allocate institutional responsibilities and to declare workable rules of international law.”

But the influence didn’t end there. “Once I became an international law professor myself, Louis took me under his wing in a familial way,” Koh said. “We would have lunch together, once at Grand Central Station, but more regularly at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law.”

Sohn’s continuing influence was seen in Koh’s selection of Charles J. Brown as his chief of staff from 1999-2001 in the Clinton Administration. Brown later became the president and CEO of the Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), the new name of the pro-world government World Federalist Association (WFA). The name of the organization was changed in order to divert public attention away from its origins in the world government movement. CGS collaborated with the Open Society Institute of George Soros against John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

The World Federalists are sometimes regarded as small and without much influence, but the fact is that prominent personalities such as Walter Cronkite, the former CBS Evening News anchorman, are world federalists. What’s more, President Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton endorsed the group’s activities during the time of the Clinton Administration.

Koh’s nomination will be considered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but it’s questionable at this point which members, if any, will raise any objections. The committee is headed by Senator John Kerry and its ranking “Republican,” Richard Lugar of Indiana, is a major backer of the United Nations who worked closely with Obama when he was also a member of the committee. Lugar is a strong supporter of various U.N. treaties, including the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

UNCLOS has always been seen by these people as a major step down the road to world government. The World Federalists declared that, by “establishing global governance” over the seabeds of the oceans and that by stipulating that mining of those areas beyond national jurisdiction “should require payment of [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]royalties[/color][/color]” to a United Nations body, UNCLOS has created “a funding resource that would be independent of voluntary contributions by the treaty member nations.” Hence, through UNCLOS, global taxes on the U.S. would come into effect.

Interestingly, Sohn and identified Soviet spy Alger Hiss, a top State Department official at the time, were both major players in the [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]conferences[/color][/color] that resulted in the creation of the United Nations in 1945. There is no clear record of them working together, however.

Ignoring Hiss, Koh gushed that Sohn was “quite literally present at the creation of the U.N.” and “became nothing less than an architect of the new world order.” Koh seems to view his role as helping to complete construction of this edifice.

In order to understand the ominous future that Sohn and his disciple Koh have planned for us, one must review Sohn’s book, World Peace Through World Law, which was first published in 1958 and co-authored with Grenville Clark of the World Federalists. It is considered a classic by World Federalists and is listed in the “timeline” of the history of world federalism. Sohn’s writings are also featured in the book, Uniting the Peoples and the Nations: Readings in World Federalism.

In the preface to the book, Robert Woito writes that UNCLOS is an example of “how the broad principles outlined in World Peace Through World Law can be applied to a specific problem.” Sohn, he noted “played a significant role in the Law of the Sea conference.”

As noted, Koh has declared that Sohn’s work on UNCLOS was one of several areas in which he helped draft global “constitutions” to manage international affairs. Koh called this the “transnational legal process” and noted that Sohn’s book, World Peace Through World Law, was part of a “stunningly ambitious global project.” Koh said that “unfortunately,” Sohn’s [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]blueprint[/color][/color] did not come to pass.
Unfortunately? This is the tip-off that Koh wants to see this dangerous New World Order implemented. He is declaring, for all to see, that he favors Sohn’s concept of world government.

As far as UNCLOS is concerned, Sohn’s fingerprints were all over it.

The [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Washington [COLOR=blue !important]Post[/color][/color][/color] acknowledged that Sohn, who died in 2006, “shaped the Law of the Sea Convention and the Law of the Sea Tribunal.” He was, according to a tribute in his honor, “instrumental” in shaping the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. In World Peace Through World Law, one of his underlying principles was the need for “equitable management of mankind’s common resources?especially outer space and the oceans…” Sohn proposed a “United Nations Ocean Authority” that would eventually be expressed in UNCLOS as the International Seabed Authority, a vehicle to control vast areas of the oceans beyond the authority of sovereign states.

The recipient of awards and medals from the American Society of International Law and the World Federalists of Canada, Sohn declared in World Peace Through World Law that “the race to exploit the oceans and the seabed can lead to new disastrous conflicts unless this ‘common heritage of mankind’ is put under United Nations management and supervision.”

This revolutionary, even Marxist, concept, did in fact become part of UNCLOS. And it was one reason why President Ronald Reagan rejected it.

In addition to a U.N. Ocean Authority, Sohn urged creation of:

A United Nations Outer Space Authority

A World Development Authority

World judicial tribunals

A United Nations Peace Force, with a strength of between 200,000 and 400,000

A United Nations Peace Force Reserve with a strength of between 300,000 and 600,000

United Nations military bases

A United Nations Revenue System

Sohn believed that the U.N. Peace Force would have “the most modern weapons and equipment,” including nuclear weapons. He wanted the U.N. to produce and supply its own weapons through a United Nations Military Supply and Research Agency.

While Sohn’s role in crafting UNCLOS has not been the subject of examination by the Senate, his colleagues in the academic and legal communities are fully aware of what he proposed and what he did. “Louis contributed significantly to the formulation of a text for the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea,” noted Detlev F. Vagts, [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Bemis[/color][/color] Professor of International Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School.

Thomas M. Franck, the Murray and Ida Becker Professor Emeritus at the New York University School of Law, gave Sohn specific credit for Annex 7 of UNCLOS, “which established a model for the mandatory peaceful resolution of disputes.” Franck said that “many” representatives of “landlocked and disadvantaged states” during negotiations on UNCLOS “were former students [of Sohn] like me.”
Daniel Barstow Magraw, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, identified Sohn as “one of four chief negotiators on the U.S. delegation to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which eventually produced the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.” He quoted Elliot Richardson, the head of the U.S. delegation and “a student in the first class Louis taught at Harvard Law School,” as saying that Sohn was “an indispensable resource” for the U.S. delegation and the conference as a whole.

Magraw conceded, however, that Sohn’s book, World Peace Through World Law, envisioned “an unusually strong world government…”
As the Senate prepares to consider UNCLOS and other treaties, it is time to examine the influence of Sohn and other like-minded extremists, radicals, and revolutionaries. The Koh nomination is a good place to begin the scrutiny

Obama is the Cheerleader for this Progressive movement. He is not the movement but just the sacrificial lamb leading the sheeple to the slaughter of freedom. I am an American and cannot stand idle or silent without protesting the possibility of losing any or all of our precious freedoms. I hope and pray that I am wrong but the gamble is too great.

 

[SavageEagle]

I must admit, I'd be personally OK with this.

I would too, but if it happened all at once, you and I both know that we don't produce enough here in the USA to supply us with all we need, effectively driving the price of steel so high it becomes unaffordable. Temporarily of course.

WTF...4Sarge is a Troll....????
All this time? Say it aint so...

Oh, but of course! It is true! That RW Nut jub we all know and love! I guess that makes me the BIGGEST troll of all since I hold the highest post count among members who aren't mods...

 

[ATM]

I would too, but if it happened all at once, you and I both know that we don't produce enough here in the USA to supply us with all we need, effectively driving the price of steel so high it becomes unaffordable. Temporarily of course.

Yes, exactly.

 

[SavageEagle]

Yes, exactly.

No more knifisies or sheet metals for yous!!!!!!

 

[HD_darla]

So i'm an 18 year old sitting at my computer reading all of this and i think to myself am i being screwed out of a life time of freedoms that my father enjoyed it freaks me out to read this. how can one man forfit millions of Americans rights? its all very confusing to me being so young and all ha ha but it leads to the question will Americans sit by and let this happen? what are your thoughts? do you think the general American public is well enough informed to stop something like this IF it ever happened? I hate to say it but i dont think we are... what do you all think?

 

[4sarge]

So i'm an 18 year old sitting at my computer reading all of this and i think to myself am i being screwed out of a life time of freedoms that my father enjoyed it freaks me out to read this. how can one man forfit millions of Americans rights? its all very confusing to me being so young and all ha ha but it leads to the question will Americans sit by and let this happen? what are your thoughts? do you think the general American public is well enough informed to stop something like this IF it ever happened? I hate to say it but i dont think we are... what do you all think?

WHY ? Many reasons, some simple, some very complex. The media, and our elected officials have led us down the primrose path because we allowed them to mind the freedom store while we were frivolously trying to raise families and earn a living. I hope that it isn't too late and some unsung hero will step up to the plate and in the 2010 & 2012 elections we can right these wrongs thru the ballot box. If not, look at Mexico and the other 3rd world countries and then you will see the America as envisioned by the Progressives. Get involved, know the issues, be vocal and educate your peers.

 

[HD_darla]

yeah i hope for some unsung hero too but do you think the average non informed American (say the college kid who's never held a gun) would not vote for him again? I mean he made it in there on charisma and change do you think people will see past that at the time of elections?

 

[SavageEagle]

yeah i hope for some unsung hero too but do you think the average non informed American (say the college kid who's never held a gun) would not vote for him again? I mean he made it in there on charisma and change do you think people will see past that at the time of elections?

I think he's lost his chance for reelection and he knows it. They're starting to add amendments to bills they would have never tried 6 months ago.

 

[HD_darla]

well that makes me happy and a little less nervous, but what about this treaty thing? think he'll do it?

 

[SavageEagle]

I think he'll definately sign it, but the bigger question is, will the Congress ratify it.

You should REALLY read the treaty. It's pretty scary stuff.

 

[HD_darla]

I skimmed the treaty and i really can not fully read it yet. well what do you think? do you think congress will ratify it? sorry to keep asking endless questions ha

 

[Dr Falken]

I skipped a whole lotta posts, but if you think that our soveriegnty hasn't already been ceded at some level prior to the threat of a cliamate treaty, familiarize yourself with WTO. It has been used to sue countries and states, superceeding local governments and self determination

 

[jblomenberg16]

The WTO is a very powerful organization, but at this point does not trump a nations sovreignty. My limited studying on the WTO suggests that it can help settle trade disputes between two sovereigns if they consent, and/or issue sanctions and those sorts of items. However, I don't recall anything granting them power over decisions made by a sovereign nation pertaining to that nation.