Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/20/2009 2:12:24 AM PDT by bogusname
If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’ “Climate Conference” in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?
We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.
You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution? Let us start at the beginning:...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
ping
Is Jeff Head the same guy with the excellent 9/12 photos on his website and the great YouTube videos?
pong
Unfortunately, I think the Constitution is viewed as saying whatever the Supreme Court deems it to say. Though the article is techically correct, it may not be functionally correct. At least we have discovered one very good Constitutional scholar.
It is a very good basis for some very serious civil disobedience. But of course that only works if someone notices and the media has a way of not noticing things. Reporting tens of thousands of marchers instead of the two million actually marching, is just one example of their handiwork.
Yes, he is.
annul the acts of usurpers...
Pretty good little annulment mechanism right here:
supreme law of the land, means it is the same as
other federal law, and trumps the states.
with that said, some treaties are not self-enacting,
which means additional federal law needs
to be passed.
for example, a treaty can’t authorize spending.
It is quite clear that neither the President or Congress can allow foreign laws or treaties to take precedence or replace the US Constitution. To think that some UN mandate would be enforced as US law is ridiculous. Congress should be hopping mad as this type of treaty could make them irrelevant. I would hope that the Supreme Court while there are at least 5 sane votes would step in as say this was totally unconstitutional. It is obvious that Obama wants to rip up the Constitution and replace it with some one world UN charter.
If it violates the constitution, it is immediately and irrevocably null and void.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
It is the responsibility of every individual within the government, at whatever level, all of whom are sworn to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foeign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, to countermand, not obey, and revoke any and all such laws, acts, treaties, judgements, etc.
Each branch, and I mean the legislative, executive, judiciary and the states themselves and all members of them, have the right and the duty to prevent and to not follow any unconstitutional act, ruling, law, treaty, judgement, etc.
We the people, if we want to preserve our Republic and constitution, if we want to protect and defend them and bear true faith and alegiance to them, have the same duty and responsibility.
Thus, this climate treaty that the President seeks to sign in Copenhagen, and that he may well sign, and that the current corrupt Senate may ratfiy, will not be the "law" of the land. To the contrary, if it seeks to ceded US soveriegnty to any other power, it will be unconstitutional and will be a treaty we are bound by duty to disobey and use as a rallying call to those around us to put down these usurpers and traitors in 2010 if at all possible...and sooner if their unconstitutional actions seek to prevent in any way the people from doing so.
“Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” Thomas Jefferson
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Alexander Hamilton
Amen...see my post 11.
Amen...see my post 11.
Amen again! Seen your 11. Agreed!
Isn’t it about time the country started viewing an Oath of Office as something besides a meaningless formality? It is that very oath taken by individuals in the service of their country, and the second amendment, that should provide the Constitution with all the protection it needs. It appears something is lacking.
Jeff, I agree. I’ve already stocked up on the “real” light bulbs, don’t ever plan to recycle, and plan to oppose “enviro” stuff with ever fiber of my being. Enough.
Just adding to what you said -
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
“... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”
“ou must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution?”
You must (be realistic now) also ask, “Does our government pay any attention to the constitution”?
“Pretty good little annulment mechanism right here:”
The guillotine - death instrument of the earliest Communists, when they called themselves “ Jacobeans”.
The Federal income tax is also "unconstitutional" ... but we all know what happens if we fail to fork over our money!
Thanks for the ping!
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.