The Senate DOES NOT need to ratify a UN treaty for us to be bound by it!!!

TeaParty.org ^ | 7/11/2012 | Bulldog

[Eagles6]

It has just been brought to my attention that because of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which the US is apparently a signatory to, the UN will consider us bound to any treaty, including the ATT, that Obummer signs.  The Senate DOES NOT have to ratify it.  I couldn't believe it when I heard it so I researched it and found the treaty and sure enough that is exactly what it says.  Please read Article 12 of this treaty even if you don't read the rest of it.  Also watch the video from Dick Morris, he also talks about the UN trying to get the power to TAX US!!!  We are doomed if this happens.

[LibLieSlayer]

I know that obama will try to use it but no... the Constitution trumps everything else and ONLY the Senate ratifies treaties. If they could scam a treaty... Kyoto would be law.

LLS

[ForGod'sSake]

The committee vote is scheduled in two days so it isn't a done deal yet.

Understood, but what I was driving at is that for years, maybe decades, the feral government and various state governments have been siphoning off BILLION$ from exploration and production of oil and gas resources in what is for all intents and purposes INTERNATIONAL waters. No?

[philman_36]

...the feral government and various state governments have been siphoning off BILLION$ from exploration and production of oil and gas resources in what is for all intents and purposes INTERNATIONAL waters. No?

That depends on where it's happening.

@ The exclusive economic zone is the zone where the U.S. and other coastal nations have jurisdiction over economic and resource management

More specifically, the EEZ includes waters three to 200 miles (five to 322 kilometers) offshore (or nine to 200 miles – 14.5 to 322 kilometers – offshore in western Florida and Texas). Coastal states are responsible for inshore waters out to three miles (five kilometers) of the coast (or nine miles, 14.5 kilometers, off the west coast of Florida and off Texas).

Which is why so many, including myself, were ticked when a foreign company was given permission to operate inside the EEZ.

@Petrobras: Chinook Field in US Gulf Leaked Fluid Sunday Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The federal oil company operates both Chinook and a nearby sister field called Cascade, where the company started oil production earlier this year. Cascade was the first U.S. Gulf of Mexico field to feature the use of a floating production, storage and offloading vessel, or FPSO. FPSOs are used extensively for offshore-oil production in Brazil.
The two oil fields are part of an ultradeepwater oil reserve discovered about 250 kilometers off the coast of Louisiana. Petrobras had originally expected to start output at the Cascade and Chinook fields in 2010, but the project was delayed after the U.S. government temporarily suspended deep-water offshore drilling in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. After receiving approval by the U.S. Department of the Interior to use the FPSO in March 2011, production was delayed once again after an equipment failure.

Petrobras is lead operator at Chinook with a 66.7% stake, while a unit of France's Total SA, Total E&P, holds the remaining 33.3%. Petrobras holds a 100% stake in the Cascade field.

Directly to your question...in one word...royalties.
siphoning off BILLION$ vs getting paid royalties.
You decide.

[ForGod'sSake]

"Royalties" were included in my reference to the siphoning of BILLION$.

Lemme try once again: The enabling language of EEZ is part and parcel of LOST is it not? The US has not ratified LOST. Now, it's entirely possible I could be missing something but again, under what authority does the feral and state governments collect $$$'s on operations in international waters?

I'm just guessing but it seems the US has decided to implement the piracy parts of LOST, that is expanding to the 200 mile EEZ to collect $$$'s but forsaking much of the rest. Not necessarily a bad thing but a bit of chicanery nonetheless IMHO. IOW, and in the words of Nobel laureate and Oscar recipient algore, what is the "controlling legal authority"?

[philman_36]

See @ 43 USC, Chapter 29, Subchapter III - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS

Your answers can be found there.
Far too extensive an issue to make a short, concise reply.

[philman_36]

You'll need this as well to look into the issue...
@ OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT THE ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1953, CHAPTER 345, AS AMENDED [As Amended Through P.L. 106–580, Dec. 29, 2000]

[ForGod'sSake]

Wonderful piece! Makes me feel a little smaller than I already felt. Thanks ;^)

As a matter of curiosity, do you know what if anything the mercantilist Hamilton and his band of merry men may have brought to the party? He apparently was not enamored with the notion of people's sovereignty and felt a more enlightened aristocracy could better guide the country. In any case, I suppose it just goes to show that power is a necessity that without a moral influence can create all manner of unholy alliances.

Odd thing, or maybe not, for much of my life I felt Americans were a breed apart. Somehow different from other free peoples, past or present. That Americans would never let tyranny in its many forms come to our shores. Over the past 20 years or so I've come to believe there's little difference between Americans and other people around the world. We can and HAVE been manipulated very nearly to the point of serfs on the plantation of corporatism. What's next???

[philman_36]

The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were believed to be inadequate.

Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," >>(sounds like "New World Order", doesn't it)<< a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."

Simply put, the treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations.

That's what it's really all about...redistribution of wealth and technology.

And remember...OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT THE ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1953.
Who started what and when?

[philman_36]

We can and HAVE been manipulated very nearly to the point of serfs on the plantation of corporatism.
What an interesting choice of words!

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state (public) and corporate (private) power." Benito Mussolini

What's next???
Need you ask? Just more of the same.
Search "agenda 21 public private partnership"

[Carry_Okie]

What's next???

I can answer that question, but to understand our predicament thoroughly, go back to the site, click "Articles," and read the next two articles, one on the 14th Amendment and the other on the NRDC. At that point, you'll understand completely the motives and means of our common enemies.

In 2001, I authored a book proposing a free-market environmental management system on which I hold the first business method patent of its kind, predating the Bartels patent that underlies carbon trading. The idea was to create businesses that would slowly displace government agencies in environmental management as a risk management enterprise. There is reason to believe that they would have both the legal standing and technical authority to stake that claim. Then I set about making our land such an outstanding example of restoration ecology as to acquire the standing as an "expert in the field." It took a decade to get our land to that point. I am in pursuit of the credential now.

The pluto-thug population control strategy is summarized in the Agenda 21: force the residual middle class into unlivable cities, infuse them with a restive underclass, and (if they don't do as they are told) cut the power and watch them starve or die of crowd diseases, unable to flee because the "greenbelt" thereabout cannot support them.

Along the way I fell across the Biblical counter-strategy to our predicament focused in the Hebrew of Exodus 23:11 re the Sabbath for the Land. The original meaning has been lost and misunderstood for about 3,500 years. It was to be a reunion of pastoral and agro-urban peoples every seven years, to stock food for the people in the wild, maintain evacuation and mustering capabilities, and build a national defense and emergency life support infrastructure. Effectively, this was a brilliant civil defense strategy for a national guerrilla militia. The story is summarized in a second book. In fact, even the old Cain and Abel story is about exactly that principle, where Cain destroys Abel by assimilation, not conflict, and ends up losing his city having destroyed the soil thereabout. I'm in the process of closing out that Hebrew translation work now and will be setting up a monster web site this winter to lay out this multidisciplinary case: political, economic, historic, environmental, and scriptural.

So as far as I'm concerned, "what's next" is to promulgate the results of that research. I'm not interested in waiting for what the pluto-thugs of this world might bring. I'd rather focus upon how to cut their legs out from under them.

[philman_36]

We can and HAVE been manipulated very nearly to the point of serfs on the plantation of corporatism.

An interesting read you may enjoy...
Fascism by Sheldon Richman

Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

Snip... As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

[ForGod'sSake]

Hey again. I've been chasing my tail and trying to understand legislative speak for about the past hour. Frustrating!!! I ran across the 1953 act you reference in an attempt to nail down a definition of "Outer Continental Shelf". HERE is what all the verbiage refers back to as a definition:

Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301)

§ 1301. Definitions

When used in this Act [43 USC § § 1301-1315]-

(a) The term "lands beneath navigable waters" means-

(1) all lands within the boundaries of each of the respective States which are covered by nontidal waters that were navigable under the laws of the United States at the time such State became a member of the Union, or acquired sovereignty over such lands and water thereafter, up to the ordinary high water mark as heretofore or hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, and reliction;

(2) all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide and seaward to a line three geographical miles distant from the coast line of each such State and to the boundary line of each such State where in any case such boundary as it existed at the time such State became a member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by Congress, extends seaward (or into the Gulf of Mexico) beyond three geographical miles, and

(3) all filled in, made, or reclaimed lands which formerly were lands beneath navigable waters, as hereinabove defined;

(b) The term "boundaries" includes the seaward boundaries of a State or its boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico or any of the Great Lakes as they existed at the time such State became a member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by the Congress, or as extended or confirmed pursuant to section 4 hereof [43 USC § 1312] but in no event shall the term "boundaries" or the term "lands beneath navigable waters" be interpreted as extending from the coast line more than three geographical miles into the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, or more than three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico, except that any boundary between a State and the United States under this Act [43 USC § § 1301-1315] which has been or is hereafter fixed by coordinates under a final decree of the United States Supreme Court shall remain immobilized at the coordinates provided under such decree and shall not be ambulatory;

(c) The term "coast line" means the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters;

(d) The terms "grantees" and "lessees" include (without limiting the generality thereof) all political subdivisions, municipalities, public and private corporations, and other persons holding grants or leases from a State, or from its predecessor sovereign if legally validated, to lands beneath navigable waters if such grants or leases were issued in accordance with the constitution, statutes, and decisions of the courts of the State in which such lands are situated, or of its predecessor sovereign: Provided, however, That nothing herein shall be construed as conferring upon said grantees or lessees any greater rights or interests other than are described herein and in their respective grants from the State, or its predecessor sovereign;

(e) The term "natural resources" includes, without limiting the generality thereof, oil, gas, and all other minerals, and fish, shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, lobsters, sponges, kelp, and other marine animal and plant life but does not include water power, or the use of water for the production of power;

(f) The term "lands beneath navigable waters" does not include the beds of streams in lands now or heretofore constituting a part of the public lands of the United States if such streams were not meandered in connection with the public survey of such lands under the laws of the United States and if the title to the beds of such streams was lawfully patented or conveyed by the United States or any State to any person;

(g) The term "State" means any State of the Union;

(h) The term "person" includes, in addition to a natural person, an association, a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a private, public, or municipal corporation.

Cleared it right up didn't it!!!

You keep referring to LOST as if it has some relevance to the U.S. Since it's never been ratified, it doesn't, except to the extent our "leaders" choose to abide by it.

[editor-surveyor]

No, it is not true.

In fact, most of the treaty raqtifications of the last 100 years or so are null and void because the senate failed to include a statement of their finding that the treaty is in compliance with the provisions of out constitution.

[philman_36]

You keep referring to LOST as if it has some relevance to the U.S.
I have? Where, specifically?

Since it's never been ratified, it doesn't, except to the extent our "leaders" choose to abide by it.
I've never claimed it was ratified nor that it applies.
I've merely shown what should apply (USC 43) compared to what has been implied to apply (EEZ) though no treaty has been ratified.

I'll wait for your reply as to which specific reply of mine you're talking about.

[ForGod'sSake]

I'd rather focus upon how to cut their legs out from under them.

For my part I'm impatiently waiting to see what the upcoming elections hold. Will Pubbies make a clean sweep in the house and senate even if Willard can't seem to find his bearings and elicit enough support to take back the white hut? Will an energized fresh crop of conservative representatives and senators finally begin to haul out the trash even if jug ears is still around? I confess I was anticipating that very thing when "W" was elected. Silly me.

[ForGod'sSake]

I'll wait for your reply as to which specific reply of mine you're talking about.

Maybe an assumption on my part from your several links and references to and excerpts from UNCLOS III/LOST. Now, how about that OUTER CONTINENTL SHELF definition??? It was about as clear as mud to me but maybe you can make something out of it.

[philman_36]

Now, how about that OUTER CONTINENTL SHELF definition??? It was about as clear as mud to me but maybe you can make something out of it.

You should know you have to look at more than one spot for answers.
Try here to help you along...
@Accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Is Unnecessary to Secure U.S. Navigational Rights and Freedoms

Abstract: For more than 200 years, the United States has successfully preserved and protected its navigational rights and freedoms by relying on naval operations, diplomatic protests, and customary international law. U.S. membership in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would not confer any maritime right or freedom that the U.S. does not already enjoy. The U.S. can best protect its rights by maintaining a strong U.S. Navy, not by acceding to a deeply flawed multilateral treaty.

And here...U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Erodes U.S. Sovereignty over U.S. Extended Continental Shelf

Abstract: If the U.S. becomes a member of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it will be required to transfer a large portion of the royalties generated on the U.S. extended continental shelf to the International Seabed Authority. These royalties may likely total tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars. The Authority may then distribute those funds to developing and landlocked nations, including some that are corrupt, undemocratic, or even state sponsors of terrorism. Instead of diverting U.S. revenues to such dubious purposes, the U.S. government should retain any wealth derived from the U.S. extended continental shelf for the benefit of the American people.

You should know that definitions in US Code are highly ambiguous.
Does up mean down or does it mean sideways?

[philman_36]

From that first link I gave... The body of international law known as the “law of the sea” was not invented in 1982 when UNCLOS was adopted, but rather “has its origins in the customary practice of nations spanning several centuries.”[8] It developed as “customary international law,” which is “that body of rules that nations consider binding in their relations with one another. It derives from the practice of nations in the international arena and from their international agreements.”[9] Although not a party to UNCLOS, the United States is bound by and acts in accordance with the customary international law of the sea and considers the UNCLOS navigational provisions as reflecting international law.
Most of the UNCLOS navigational provisions have long been recognized as customary international law. The convention’s articles on navigation on the high seas (Articles 86–115, generally) and passage through territorial waters (Articles 2–32, generally) were copied almost verbatim from the Convention on the High Seas and the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, both of which were adopted in 1958. The United States is party to both conventions, which are considered to be codifications of widely accepted customary international law. You need links or do you think you can find them?

[philman_36]

From that first link I gave... The body of international law known as the “law of the sea” was not invented in 1982 when UNCLOS was adopted, but rather “has its origins in the customary practice of nations spanning several centuries.”[8] It developed as “customary international law,” which is “that body of rules that nations consider binding in their relations with one another. It derives from the practice of nations in the international arena and from their international agreements.”[9] Although not a party to UNCLOS, the United States is bound by and acts in accordance with the customary international law of the sea and considers the UNCLOS navigational provisions as reflecting international law.
Most of the UNCLOS navigational provisions have long been recognized as customary international law. The convention’s articles on navigation on the high seas (Articles 86–115, generally) and passage through territorial waters (Articles 2–32, generally) were copied almost verbatim from the Convention on the High Seas and the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, both of which were adopted in 1958. The United States is party to both conventions, which are considered to be codifications of widely accepted customary international law. You need links or do you think you can find them?