Posted on 06/27/2003 5:29:27 PM PDT by Djarum
Missouri v. Holland 1920
"No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power.
A careful reading of Reid v. Covert 1956 reveals that the only real limits on treaty power are the partitioning of States (without their consent) and a head-on contradiction of the Constitution. If you understand the Bill of Rights, you will know that very little protection is offered by them.
For instance, troops *can* be quartered in your home, in a time of war (thats now folks) if in a manner "prescribed by law" (wanna bet that a treaty with Liberia counts?).
You can be searched without a warrant so long as its not an "unreasonable" search. That includes much of your car under the Terry doctrine.
Stand by, a supply sider will be along shortly to flap his hands and talk about the Laffer curve.
The Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere is just such a treaty.
Perhaps, but we still would be in deep trouble.
The Constitution was a rigged deck from the get go.
The Founding Lawyers were smart and human, all too human.
Almost every "abuse" today is perfectly Constitutional just as the Founders intended.
They had a revolution to make way for another oppressive government?
The Convention on Nature Protection must be read to be believed. In his summary report to a distracted Senate, Executive Report No. 5, April 3 1941, Secretary of State Cordell Hull misrepresented its virtually unlimited scope. From the Preamble (bold emphasis added):Frankly, it is a treaty that exceeds the authority or power of any government. Its requirements cannot be met.“The Governments of the American Republics, wishing to protect and preserve in their natural habitat representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough to assure them from becoming extinct through any agency within man’s control;” After going on at considerable length about wilderness areas and national parks, they come back with this language in Article V Section 1:“The Contracting Governments agree to adopt, or to propose such adoption to their respective appropriate law-making bodies, suitable laws and regulations for the protection and preservation of flora and fauna within their national boundaries but not included in the national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, or strict wilderness reserves referred to in Article II hereof.” All species, all land, no limits to the commitment. Mr. Hull made no mention of the scope of Article V in his summary (that he submitted to the Senate -CO). It was he who, upon Roosevelt’s approval, convened the Planning Commission that created the United Nations soon after the adoption of this treaty. It is a document that exceeds the constitutional authority of the government of the United States.It can’t work either. This treaty is contrary to natural law.
Nature is a dynamic, adaptive, and competitive system. Under changing conditions, some species go extinct, indeed, for natural selection to operate, they must. The problem arises when human influence grows so powerful that one can always attribute loss of a species to being “within man’s control.” When humans ask, “Which ones lose?” the treaty specifies, “None,” and demands no limit to the commitment to save them all. This of course destroys the ability to act as agent to save anything, much less objectively evaluate how best to expend our resources to do the best that can be done.
This treaty cannot be satisfied: It calls for a halt to natural selection, itself.
A government that derives power from an impossible genetic status quo is incapable of a solution. This is a system that assumes protection and preservation work. It gives agencies of government unlimited monopoly power to manage all land use as if that would help. It supposes that agencies are experts interested only in fulfilling their mandate. It dedicates unlimited tax resources for protection of an unlimited number of species and their genera. It invokes itself across the entire nation. It assumes that destroying an economy will benefit native species. How would we then fund the effort to do better?
Enlighten me. I've read Farrand, BTW, and am now working on Thomas Cooley's A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the United States of the American Union. Cooley would dispute your assertion.
Ahhh, the Third Amendment. It means what it says and it says what it means. It leaves very little room for the left to maneuver it into meaning something else.
Engblom v. Carey, 677 F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on remand, 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd. per curiam, 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983).
It is probably the most successful amendment as it has totally prevented the action it so plainly prohibits.
Indeed it did. I'm just curious sometimes why we even bother with state lines anymore
I thought Bob Dole had it in his pocket.
Don't confuse the revolutionaries with the Founding Lawyers. Patrick Henry and many others despised the Constitutional Convention and its results.
An oppressive government isn't a big deal if you are the oppressor. The Founding Lawyers were designing their future jobs.
The Federalists bought out and closed down newspapers that printed alternative views. The CC was held in strict secrecy. Madison's notes weren't made available to the public for decades. Hamilton and Madison concealed their authorship of the Federalist papers (which were a bait and switch)...and on and on and on.
Just look at the structure of the original government.
The President? Not chosen by "the people" but appointed by the electoral college which in turn was chosen by state legislature.
Supreme court justices? Not chosen by the people
The Senate? Not chosen by the people.
And who judges the Senators, President and SCOTUS ? Certainly not the people. The try and judge themselves.
Only the House was chosen directly by the people. You'll notice the Senate has significantly more power than the House. Gee I wonder why that is.
Oh, and the entire nature of judicial branch is left to Congress. That's some check and balance. They didn't even bother to specify the number of Supreme Court Justices. Do you really think that was a mistake? Furthermore, what interest do any of the three branches have in limiting Federal Power ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!
The Constitution was created by the elite to secure power over a rowdy illiterate mob. The system was specifically designed to preserve government power even against the wishes of the people.
Either the Constitution is powerless to prevent the kind of government we have today or it was deliberately designed to create a nearly unlimited government.
Which is it?
Our situation today is quite distinct from theirs.
We can do better.
I'm not being cynical. I'm just trying to describe the nature of the fix we're in.
I have copies of the Congressional Record from 1941
I don't understand. This isn't a SCOTUS ruling. Marbury vs. Madison established the SCOTUS as the final word on Constitutinality. (Whereas in an ideal world every jury in America would make such judgements...with appeal, of course.)
The problem is that when present-day "experts" propose a new constitution, it reads like this one. Hillary Clinton often cites these articles (sometimes word for word) as if they were already part of the U. S. Constitution (see Articles 40-46, 52, 61, 67, and 69).
No, they did not want a Bill of Rights at all. Only when the States refused to co-operate did they throw us that bone.
They sent the Navy out to blockade Rhode Island when she refused to sign.
And yes, the 2nd was a very high priority for the states. All of them wanted a 2nd. Only a minority insisted on the 1st !!
But they were long term thinkers, they left routes open to degrade the 2nd.
Surely you've noticed.
Have you seen the EU's?
Man, its reaaaal horror show.
No, I've not. Do you know where it is on-line? I'd love to read it.
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.