Posted on 10/22/2007 1:05:44 PM PDT by rightalien
This year a Democratic majority took power on Capitol Hill. But new leadership has done nothing to address an old problem: Lawmakers racing to pass bills they haven't actually read.
Recall the Senate's ill-fated immigration reform bill last spring. Senators didn't bother to hold committee hearings on the measure. Had they done so, they'd have realized it would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation did read the bill, and calculated it would cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion.
That bill died without a vote, because the more that senators learned about it, the less they liked it.
But that raises the question, "Are lawmakers paying attention?" Because sometimes even a proposal that's been around forever manages to crawl forward, without anyone seeming to have read it.
Consider the Law of the Sea Treaty.
President Reagan first scuttled LOST back in 1982 because it would've hurt American sovereignty. But President Clinton brought it back in the 1990s, and the treaty's been floating around Capitol Hill ever since. Now, mistakenly, the Bush administration has endorsed LOST, and the full Senate may soon consider it.
But in 25 years, has anybody bothered to look beyond the title? Experts who have know that LOST would create a bureaucratic International Seabed Authority with the power to regulate trade, exploration and mining in the world's oceans.
This authority would basically be an aquatic United Nations of the sea (indeed, LOST is a U.N. convention). Except, instead of issuing toothless condemnations of the U.S., this authority would have the actual power to thwart American interests.
For example, the treaty would give environmental activists the power to bring action against the U.S. for violating the Kyoto Protocol, even though the Senate never ratified that accord and senators sensibly made it clear they wouldn't agree to Kyoto if it would harm American economic interests.
But LOST wouldn't stop even at the water's edge.
During a recent Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger III whether the treaty would cover pollution from land-based sources. "We've worked our way through the treaty. We are confident that pollution from land-based sources would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the tribunals or arbitral panels," Bellinger assured the committee.
But Vitter seems to have, amazingly enough, read LOST. "I would point you to Section 6, Article 213, page 176, which is about enforcement with respect to pollution from land-based sources," the senator said. "It seems to me the very title of that article at least sets up a prima facie case that your statement isn't correct."
Indeed, Vitter -- not the State Department lawyer who's supposed to be the expert on this treaty -- is correct. The treaty insists that any country that signs it will be required to pass "laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere."
The problem is that once the Senate ratifies a treaty, we're bound by the entire thing, not just those parts we agree with. That's a point that came up recently during Supreme Court arguments in Medellin v. Texas . Our country "accepted the authority of this tribunal, and to be bound to follow its decisions," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. A treaty thus supersedes state laws.
Our republican form of government requires lawmakers who carefully consider the consequences of every law they pass and every treaty they approve. Senators should take a few hours to actually read the Law of the Sea treaty before they put it to a vote. If they do, there's little doubt that this bad proposal will be beached.
(Ed Feulner is the president of The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute. The views expressed are those of the writer.)
“Now, mistakenly, the Bush administration has endorsed LOST, and the full Senate may soon consider it.”
I would imagine the bush administration is well-informed in its decision to support LOST, unfortunately.
To the Democrats, ANY decision on any issue is the third rail of politics.
It sure is, he said with disgust.
Congress failed to let us know they have been bailing water since 1964.
BS!
There is no doubt that an international, anti-American court somewhere will hold the US liable for all runoff into the oceans and the UN Lost folks will levy fees against the US in accordance with the that international court.
Say NO to LOST!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1909166/posts
From the thread with the Navy Brass wanting LOST.
Irony of ironies: The principal champion of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is the United States Navy. Yet predictably few organizations would suffer more than America’s naval forces from a supranational government of the oceans empowered by U.S. accession to that treaty.
The absurdity of this situation was on display last week as the Navy’s former senior officer, retired Chief of Naval Operations Vernon Clark, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Adm. Clark waxed on about LOST as “a Magna Carta for the oceans that guarantees navigation freedoms throughout the world’s largest maneuver space.” The committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, declared in about as many words that, if the Navy wants the treaty, the Senate should give it to them. Period.
That with the present Navy Brass saying they want the New Navy to be an arm of Foggy Bottom bothers me very much.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071005/COMMENTARY/110050029
More Information on this topic above: “U.S. LOST at sea?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912600/posts
Above thread Is about the New Navy!
Adm. Mike Mullen — who just left his job as head of the Navy to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — has said he sees the Navy’s humanitarian work as key to the effort to defeat terrorism by winning hearts and minds.
When Roughead succeeded Mullen at the Navy last week, he called in a speech for more international partnerships to make the Navy a “force for good” around the globe.
My Dad, before he died, used to talk to me about the run-up to WWII, where he fought as a naval officer against the Japanese in the PTO. He told me that the Japanese Imperialists and the German Nazis were every bit as fanatical and dedicated as some of the enemies of today whom we are now embroiled in fighting.
He indicated that like these times, there were a whole lot of individuals back then, in and out of the service, who had bought into the peace accords, reduced size/tonnage fleets, etc. as a way to keep the peace.
He told me that if took a good 12 months of honest to God all out war to weed all of those people out. Sadly, most of the weeding out revolved around scenarios where people lost their lives on the failed thinking and policies of such. I fear we are in store for the same thing.
The Chinese, the Iranians, the Venesuelan madman, and other tinhorns around the world are serious and intent on bringing the eagle down...and they are lining up now in alliances and accords of their own preparing, IMHO, to do so. One day (particularly the Chinese) they are going to be in a position to make a serious run at it. It is then...when this rising generation will run headlong into the same hard lessons as the generation of our fathers.
54 posted on 10/17/2007 4:42:12 PM CDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be.
Dear Senator Cornyn:
Thank you for your insightful stance on the Medellin Rape/Murder case and the attempted evasion of our court’s decision by President Bush.
Speaking of President Bush- What is he trying to do to our country with this Law Of The Sea Treaty? It seems like he is attempting to nullify the soveriegnty of the United States and deliver the rule of the US to the United Nations. He is totally and completely violating his oath of office, he is completely derelict in his duty to enforce our border security in a time of war, and I believe that he has taken leave of his senses.
I sincerely request that you please discuss these situations with Vice President Cheney and specifically review Amendment XXV Section Four of the Constitution concerning the involuntary relieving of an Incapacitated President of his duties.
I am not alone in believing that President Bush may have gone around the bend, but whatever the reason(s) he has ceased to represent the good of the nation a long time ago.
I gave this President a pass on the Dubai Ports; Harriett Meiers; Rumsfield’s firing timing; the Minutemen’s portrayal as vigilantes; The two persecuted(?) border patrolmen; the Haditha Marines; Pat Tillman; Katrina; no prosecution of Abu Grahib brass; Calling the illegal immigration opponents unpatriotic; and Alberto Gonzales.
I have supported Bush generally on the war on terror, as he calls it, but he needs to realize that it is a war on MUSLIM terrorists, not a religion of peace as he likes to call them.
Thank you for your attention. I am sure that you will know how to proceed.
BTTT
They haven't in years. Why start now?
The American people need to start over and send the current pack of clowns packing...every last one of them.
bttt
Still waiting to hear where the GOP candidates stand on LOST. :(
Sometimes, these morons passing bills they haven’t read is a good thing.
Like a few years ago when they accidentally passed a bill that eliminated their ability to give themselves (e.g. the current sitting Congress) a raise. Under the terms of the bill they signed, they can only give a raise to the next Congress.
The phrase “Hoist by their own petard” comes to mind!
great quote
With all respect, Sir, that is baloney. The bill died because freepers and others like us let our congressmen know in no uncertain terms that we were against that (immigration) bill. We need to do the same with LOST.
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.