North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

Human Events Online ^ | Jun 19, 2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[You Dirty Rats]

I-69 and so does my wife.

[Little Ray]

Maybe it works the other way? We challenge THEIR laws to allow free speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada and Mexico?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I-69 and so does my wife.

I hope your partners are OK with you two being married. :-)

[1rudeboy]

Someone posted the actual press release from Prof. Corsi's publisher (maybe thinking it was another news article) on another NAU thread. It was frightening to compare it to the World Net Daily article it spawned.

[Logical me]

100 million armed Americans trumps North American Union.

That's why we should never surrender our guns. Keep America strong and keep Government honest. That's in the Constitution. Read it!!!

[Captain Rhino]

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.

IIRC, they are listed in order of precedence (i.e., the Constitution is superior to US laws and treaties, US law is superior to treaties but not to the Constitution, etc.).

However, having said this, there is a certain amount of patriotism and due diligence required on the part of federal lawmakers and judges needed to keep these matters in their proper relationships. Many communist states had/have wonderful constitutions and laws on paper. It is the character of the men and women enforcing the laws that makes all the difference. So, in the end, it is a government of laws and people.

[Dazedcat]

"President Bush would never sell this country out. Don't even think about mentioning immigration."

Sorry, but already has....or is in the process as we speak.

I won't mention immigration, because what policy do we actually have? It may be really tough to emigrate here if you're European but it's REAL easy if you're from the middle east or from Mexico.

[AmishDude]

I think it was just an attempt to get the article reposted. Notice that they aren't content to have just one thread.

[Rokke]

"Come on over and learn what Bush is doing with the CFRs plan."

Sorry, all my time right now is being used up on studying Chemtrails and the Bermuda Triangle. So many conspiracies, so little time...

[tpaine]

Part of Article VI of the Constitution: 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.

The question is: -- can there be law/treaties which are inconsistent with the constitution?
Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?

"-- in Pursuance thereof --" is the operative phrase.

Any law or treaty that was repugnant to our Constitutions principles would be null & void. [see Marbury]

I've been in this discussion before. I agree with you whole heartedly, however, that is only valid if we make the SCOTUS enforce the law. That does not seem to happen much lately. It also hasn't been the case for many years with regard to treaties.

Practically every dispute on FR boils down to this same question: -- can government [at any level] enact or enforce laws [or treaties] that infringe on our basic rights to life, liberty, or property?

The answer of course is no.. -- What is truly amazing is how many here find 'conservative' ways to dispute that point.

[Bokababe]

One of my favorite quotes came from a friend of mine who used to be US Undersecretary of Commerce. She said: "Those who say that they don't believe in conspiracy theories have obviously never worked in government!"

As much as all of this sounds completely far-fetched, much of the same strategy has already been accomplished in Europe with the EU -- and that was also "unthinkable" 20 years ago.

However, having said that -- it seems to me that truly debating this issue requires a whole lot more homework on all our parts, both into the NAU and into the rights of the president and/or Congress to supercede the Consitution. Because if there is any substance to this, it could be the most important issue we ever debate. If not, it isn't worth losing a night's sleep over!

[1rudeboy]

That kind of stuff used to be frowned-upon, but it is not any longer. I've come across the attitude of "the more a thread gets posted/bumped the better" before (some folks think that it gets "the word out"). Usually, those are the same folks that think voting Third Party makes a difference, and are unwilling to make the effort to split-off voters from the Dems by posting elsewhere than FR.

[1rudeboy]

As much as all of this sounds completely far-fetched, much of the same strategy has already been accomplished in Europe with the EU -- and that was also "unthinkable" 20 years ago.

The difference being, of course, that it's pretty tough to insist that Europe's currency or economic union was done in secret.

[Eastbound]

It's really that simple, but difficult for most to absorb. We have to be a nation of laws and not men, else we'll fail. But those laws have to be, as you point out, in pursuance to the Bill of Rights/Constitution, for the Constitution constructs the legal mechanism and contract for our elected officials to adhere to, to prevent infringement of both enumerated and non-enumerated rights of the individual.

Even without the Second Amendment, the right to self-defense is so basic that only a tyrant would suppose it was not an non-enumerated right.

[jer33 3]

You and your friends must want folks to read these threads since you consistently bump them to the top. You guys have helped to keep the discussion going.

[1rudeboy]

How true. I lay awake at night in the fear that I may have made a 0.0001% difference in some 3P candidate's vote total, or caused someone to rush out and bury a 20' shipping container full of SPAM and BB's in his backyard.

[CDHart]

"President Bush would never sell this country out."

I always come back to the fact that Bush Sr. was the first president to use the phrase "new world order" in public.

Carolyn

[You Dirty Rats]

Britain agreed to it in principle when they joined the EC under Ted Heath over thirty years ago. Margaret Thatcher discusses the issue in detail in her book The Downing Street Years.Churchill discussed the "United States of Europe" in Triumph and Tragedy, the last of his six-volume WWII series.

I haven't seen anyone of like stature here discuss the NAU -- just a couple of fringe academic types and one Bushwacking Congressman.

[tertiary01]

From the look of things, many around here have forgotten what part of the anatomy is exposed when your head is buried in the sand. The scariest part of all is that the enemies of what is left of our Republic have done a very good propaganda job such that anyone who waves a red flag is pigeonholed in the "conspiracy nut" box, the message is ignored, and the group falls in line behind those waving the white flag.

They have learned their Marxist/Soviet propaganda and debating tactics well.

[MikefromOhio]

My apologies :)

I decided to consult a Ouija board and a Magic 8 ball to see what our next course of action should be.

I think that we should enact a law outlawing all McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's for Taco Bells :)