Sorry I didn't get back sooner to all you good folks. Had to go shopping and do some real government work, or else...lol, not eat. Good to see the thread didn't die, is still alive and well with some worthwhile input.
Kenny Bunk's thread title is: "Corsi, Tancredo on Liddy to Challenge WH unauthorized work on 'North American Union." "Author Jerome Corsi and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., will be guests tomorrow on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show to discuss the White House's effort to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress."
My take on the topic. Sticking with Kenny Bunk's topic and theme, I believe Corsi and Tom Tancredo's questions may lie in the U.S. Constitution, of separation of powers and duties thereof authorized by same. "In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements. All three classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification (by the 2/3rds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone) and their relationship to domestic law. Also, since congress has control over the purse strings, the up and coming hearing will hinge on the patented questions of who, what, where, and when to determine the legality of the SPP office at post #304, and why congress was not informed of it's creation, and oversight. Since NAFTA is by all definitions a treaty approved by two branches of our government (congress and executive), and signed by the governments of Canada and Mexico, therefore, any treaty expansion[s], changes, alterations of, must be re approved by the same branches of government that first conceived them. It's called governmental checks and balances. IMO, since this has been brougth up as such, and if SPP was in fact legally setup, there would not be any need of a congressional hearing[s]. Since the question has been raised, hence, a political flap.
Congress knows what is going on and are fully aware of these treaties and agreements. Congress may not be aware or fully informed after this bill is passed.
I found this the other night and can see the dangers in this bill passing.
Public Notice 5402: Proposal to update the regulations implementing 1 U.S.C. 112a and 112b, May 18, 2006
[Federal Register: May 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 96)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28831-28835]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18my06-22]
snip...
``United States Treaties and Other International
Agreements'' or in the Treaties and Other International Acts series.
These categories of agreements are of a highly technical or specialized
nature and are of limited interest to the public. Further, the
regulations are proposed to be amended to reflect adjustments to
certain internal procedures within the State Department on the
reporting of international agreements to Congress
snip....
(2) The public interest in such agreements is insufficient to
justify their publication, because (A) as of the date of enactment of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995,
the agreements are no longer in force; (B) the agreements do not create
private rights or duties, or establish standards intended to govern
government action in the treatment of private individuals; (C) in view
of the limited or specialized nature of the public interest in such
agreements, such interest can adequately be satisfied by an alternative
means; or (D) the public disclosure of the text of the agreement would,
in the opinion of the President, be prejudicial to the national
security of the United States; and
snip...
In selecting the following categories of agreements, the Department
has focused on four areas comprising a large volume of agreements that
are rather specialized and do not appear to be of general public
interest.
snip....
There is little, if any,
public interest in these agreements.
snip....
there has been no indication of public interest in their substance.
snip....
There has been no indication of public interest in the publication of
these agreements.
snip....
Finally, the Department proposes to add a new section 22 CFR 181.9
that implements an Internet publication requirement. Public Law 108-458
specifically added subsection (d) to 1 U.S.C. 112a, establishing that
``[t]he Secretary of State shall make publicly available through the
Internet Web site of the Department of State each treaty or
international agreement proposed to be published in the compilation
entitled `United States Treaties and Other International Agreements'
not later than 180 days after the date on which the treaty or agreement
enters into force.
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/66501.htm