Posted on 05/09/2015 10:09:41 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
If you are watching the news, or were listening to Mark Levin’s rant last evening, the subject du jour is the Senate passage 96-1 of the Corker-Cardin bill. Yes, that is Tennessee’s own Republican Senator Corker, who obviously has his political eye set on a future in the White House.
The bill is advertised by Republican leadership as a great victory giving Congress 30 days to review the President’s secret nuclear treaty negotiations with Iran before enactment. Under present law, the President cannot execute a treaty with a foreign nation unless it has the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. All senate Democrats, and all but one Republican, voted to approve Corker-Cardin, plus the President has promised to sign the measure into law. That in itself should have raised some Republican red flags. But the only opposition to passage was that of an upstart Republican freshmen senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton. Oh well, he probably didn’t want an office desk anyway.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution stipulates that there can be no foreign treaty executed unless 2/3 of the senators present approve. But under Corker-Cardin, the President’s Iranian Nuclear Deal is binding unless Congress disapproves. See the difference? If Congress should disapprove, the president can nullify such disapproval with a veto. Thus Obama’s Iranian Nuclear Deal will stand if only 34 members of Congress refuse to override his veto, instead of the 67 needed to support his treaty. Are Corker and friends really that dumb?
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-OH) said, “I look forward to House passage of this bill to hold President Obama’s administration accountable,” It doesn’t.
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says he just wants to get beyond the Iran matter to...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Yeah, let's vote 'em in and hold their feet to the fire.
*spit*
It passed 96-1. It wasn’t just one Republican.
how did needing 2/3 for turn into needing 2/3 against? how the hell did that happen? I’ve never in my 46 years heard of any kind of vote like that.
No, they are most certainly NOT that dumb... so what exactly was their motivation? My guess: Boehner thinks he's being clever by hanging the issue around Obama's neck. Obama doesn't care, not does Iran. Nor do Democrats. Nor do their voters. The bullies will keep doing whatever they want until they are forced to stop... Boehner's "clever" ploys, notwithstanding.
Welcome to the wonderful world of 14th Amendment administrative law. You'll note that the President heads the Administration.
Oops. McConnell, not Boehner.
It sounds fishy if Boehner is using one of Obama’s favorite, words ,”Accountable” ,LOL
Corker probably Tory roots, a sellout to the end.
Should meet the same fate as the Tory Riddle.
It flips the Constitution on its head. Privileges granted by the government, rather than rights granted by God that the government can't touch.
What Congress is doing here is applying the concept to itself. It technically doesn't apply, unless they vote to make it apply, which they are. But the insidious part is that no one will recognize it as wrong, because it is abused against everyone all the time, so much so that it has been normalized.
For example, when a cop pulls you over to give you a ticket, you have the right to refute his presumption that the vehicle code applies to you, and make him prove it does before he proceeds.
Of course, afer he gets done laughing, he'll ask you to step out of the car... and get away with it, because the Courts have granted him the power of presumption, and the laws hide the limits of their jurisdictions, and so you'll end up before a stacked 14th Amendment Court that doesn't have to tell you squat - and won't.
It's "how it's done."
But now Congress is doing it to themselves, violating their own powers under the Constitution to do so, but utterly confident that no one in America will recognize it for the fraud it really is or call them on it. And they're right.
I wonder if the cops and Courts who get away with such legal manipulations literally every day, recognize that the results of their efforts are a country that doesn't recognize when their economy is being sold down the river by socialists through bogus trade agreements. I wonder if they recognize that the reason their own children can't get jobs is precisely because of the results of their efforts.
Even worse, I wonder if they really even care anymore.
Great post.
I remember being on vacation when I was young and my license plates were stolen. Got 400 bucks in tickets on a street in a town I didn’t know existed.
Cop was too lazy to get out and check against the sticker.
Didn’t matter. The judge said pay it or you’re in lots of trouble. That was my taste of the scary side of America.
Cops and most others don’t look past next week in this country anymore. The fed has clobbered people with so many laws and taxes they barely have the strength to get through the day, no less change government. sad
How would you go about fixing that Constitutional Amendment-wise?
I have some ideas, but they need some ironing out, IMO.
And if they are called on it, the courts will deny the standing.
Actually, it's incredibly simple - just make the government establish jurisidication in every case, before it can proceed. In other words, make the government "presumption" of jurisidiction illegal.
Secondly, require all laws have an explicit jurisidiction statement, with all corporate terms listed and definied, in the laws - statutes, regulations and policies - themselves.
And it's hardly a novel idea - try suing the government, and their lawyers will demand you "prove jurisidiction, prove standing" without even looking up from their popcorn and Netflix, let alone reading your complaint.
But applied to THEM? Hah. Yeah, they'll get right on that...
|
|
|---|
| Section I No court or tribunal shall deny inquiry into its jurisdiction or authority nor make any presumption of jurisdiction. Section II This Constitution and the Constitution of the State wherein the jurisdiction of the trying court resides may always be used as a defense, the interpretation presented may or may not be correct —it is the right of the jury to decide— but the court cannot prevent it from being cited and argued. Section III The Fifth amendment’s prohibition against being tried for the same offence twice is hereby recognized as applying to actions and not jurisdiction; no federal case shall be made against a person for actions already tried by a State or subdivision thereof. However, nothing herein prevents a State from trying persons for Treason against its own sovereignty. Section IV The Sixth amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial is hereby recognized: for every week after the six months from the start of the trial the accused shall be paid the national average wage for one week’s pay, this payment shall be the responsibility and liability of the officers of the court. Section V The Eighth amendment is hereby recognized as preventing excessively long imprisonment: no term of imprisonment shall exceed ten years. The Eighth amendment shall not be held to prevent capital punishment. Section VI The Second amendment is hereby recognized: no court shall bar a juror from wearing his weapon, as he is a free man. Section VII No right of the Citizen shall be denied to a Citizen who, having been convicted, has completed his sentence. Section VIII The text of the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted and, as the judiciary does such with its doctrine of incorporation, the Fourteenth amendment is hereby repealed. |
The way that works with jurisidiction is that the Courts "presume" you accept their jurisidiction by talking to them at all. In other words, their position is that if you need them to agree to something, that means you agree they have the power over you that requires their agreement - i.e. jurisidiction. So if you challenge their jurisidiction, they say, "hey, if you're asking us whether we have jursidiction over you, then by asking us, you're agreeing that we have jurisdicition over you."
Catch 22? You bet - big time. You can even show up in court and point to an actual law, say a plumbing code, that says it only applies to licensed plumbers, and point out that you are not, in fact, a licensed plumber, and the Court will rule that you have "chosen to be treated" as a licensed pumber because you showed up to contest the plumbing citiation.
Except that the Court has also ruled, generally, that it doesn't have to inform you of its jurisidictional ruling, but just rule. So, if you are challenging jurisidiction and the Court rules against you, and by ruling against you you have no standing to challenge jurisidiction, it just tells you that "you have no standing." Not WHY you don't - just THAT you don't.
Is there a workaround? Yes - technically. You can declare yourself appearing before Court without first accepting its jurisdiction, specifically and only to challenge its jurisidiction, if you make a "special appearance." BUT - there are rules to making a special appearance. Want to know what those rules are? Guess what - the Court doesn't have to tell you what they are. And won't.
But if you screw any of them up, your challenge is thrown out for lack of proper procedure, and the original charge is applied against you. And if you keep trying, that's called being "frivolous" - and you can be charged for that as a form a contempt of Court.
Oh, and attorneys can't challenge the jurisdiction of the Court for you, because they are only licensed to practice WITHIN the jurisdiction of the Court.
And that is why a cop will find it so amusing if you challenge his jurisidiction, and then write you the ticket anyway and suggest you discuss the matter with a judge.
So yeah, you can have the law totally on your side, even specifically saying that it doesn't apply to you, and still go to jail, be fined, whatever. That's why I have a lot of compassion for people who do their own legal research - and I fear for them. Because they can be technically correct and still get into a lot of trouble and have no idea why.
So it's not going to change by this or that case, but only if a LOT of Americans wake up. Unfortunately, however, the majority of Americans can't even work a shopping cart, let alone be motivated and disciplined enough to study the aspects of law that might ultimately end up threatening their ability to get government handouts. Because guess what - if a person gets ANY government support whatsoever, they've "accepted" government jurisdiction by doing so. What a coincidence, eh?
Wow, sounds nice. Where’d you get it?
Apparently I did no harm sitting out the November GOP landslide “victory”.
This bill is facially unconstitutional. Who has standing to challenge its constitutionality? Probably only a US Senator; which one would have the cojones to do so?
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.