North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

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

[Theoden]

President Bush the Elder = NWO

President Bush the Younger = NWO

Any questions?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

More than one treaty has had provisions clipped by a court.

As FDR showed, nothing a few appointments can't fix.

[MikefromOhio]

nah didn't you know?

The President, in his GRAND CONSPIRACY, will tell them to stand down.

LOL

Corsi is revealing himself to be nothing other than a nut.

[Sender]

True. An unconstitutional attempt from any pseudo court would begin The Reckoning.

[AmishDude]

No duplicate posts, please.

[Eastbound]

"Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms."

Thanks for the humor. Wait'll my 'peer group' gets a load of this. We haven't had much to laugh about for a long time.

[AmishDude]

Welcome to the FR moonbat thread.

[LachlanMinnesota]

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.

Does this clause place treaties on the same level with the constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land?" Higher? the phrase "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" is a very dangerous phrase if interpreted in certain ways.

If so, does it not follow that there can be treaties which are inconsistent with the constitutional terms? Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?

My concern is that a president will enter into a treaty, and 2/3 of the Senate will ratify it, an it will erode our constitutional rights. Has this issue been dealt with in the context of treaties which, for example, provide for trials that do not include our constitutional rights?

I am concerned that the various trade agreements made or to be made in the future will be the route by which our national life is irreparably harmed.

[1rudeboy]

In other words, the lack of documentary proof of this secret order is proof of it?

That about covers it.

[Jason_b]

I would hope enough police and soldiers would remember their oaths and feel enough loyalty to their neighbors that they would refuse to fire on the populace. Even the gun confiscators in New Orleans expressed misgivings about doing that job. Said they never imagined they'd be asked to do this, that it felt strange. Often times people do evil as they are told once, but having done it reflect, realize the mistake, regret it, and resolve it won't happen again.

[TomGuy]

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America goes into effect in 2010.

That is 4 years!

Apparently, there has been no Congressional oversight of this program/plan, either.

[Eastbound]

"Only if they feel strongly enough to use them on police, soldiers and politicians who will be enforcing NAU."

Police and soldiers are sworn to preserve and protect our constitution and our country against all enemies, foreign and domestic and are on our side. Policitians, on the other hand . . .

[AmishDude]

Any questions?

Yes: Does it hurt?

[1rudeboy]

As I pointed out to someone else a long time ago, it's pretty tough to imagine a document (such as the U.S. Constitution) that authorizes another document (a treaty) to supercede itself.

[Centurion2000]

Sounds a lot like the North American Combine from the GURPS OGRE worlds. NOT A nice place to even visit.

If they want another civil war, merging three countries will start one in a heartbeat. No wonder they want our guns gone.

[AmishDude]

You wouldn't believe how difficult it is for us to get all the ducks in a row by then, too. We have to set up the courts and the legislatures and figure out whom in the secret conspiracy to reveal to the public. There's so much to do, we're working around the clock.

[Reagan Man]

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

LOL Contrary to what you and others may believe, the facts remain crystal clear. GWBush has always supported open borders, a path to citizenship and a guest worker program for illegals. The last two equate to amnesty for illegals. Like it or not, those are the facts. Jerome Corsi has been talking about the so-called "unification" of North America for some time now. Bush`s support for globalism seems to play right into the hands of this idea of uniting Mexico, Canada and the USA into one giant hemispheric consortium. Thereby undermining US sovereignty and tossing the Constitution out the window. Sorry you don't see it that way.

[LachlanMinnesota]

I agree, but was wandering if there was any court that had to decide an issue along those lines, as it would make me happy to know that the court felt the same way. IF the court put this possible interpretation" to rest, there would be less concern for loss of individual liberties.

[A message]

Not sure why?

But Corsi seems to be getting a forum to speak.

Even Ken and John on KFI LA gave him time to speak last week, IIRC.

He was spouting off that the Texas trans corridor was the first step to a super highway from Mexican ports to the US and Canada as a way to circumvent union controlled ports in America.

Part of a "grand conspiracy" to bring cheap Chinese products to America using Mexican trucks from Mexican ports.


Currently I'm not going to buy into this but only time will tell.

[1rudeboy]

I tried to argue in favor of incrementalism at the last secret OAS/NAU meeting (I don't recall exactly when, but the time & location were posted on the 'net), but no one took my suggestion to outlaw hot dogs, Mom, and apple pie seriously.