Hmmmm, a brick just flew through my window. It has a note that says you looked everywhere. Characteristically, "everywhere" somehow (and habitually) didn't include my site, which just about figures. There you would have found:
Patrick Henry "Ratified": The Treaty Power, It's Perils and Portents
That article refers to this one:
Treaty Law: The Constitution’s original Trojan Horse
The first was built out of the second with new material added that is much better than the original at laying out the modern legal architecture. The latter (the original) has more examples of treaty power abuse. It is also considerably shorter.
Yet to understand the implications fully would require knowledge of the process of centralization of power over the last 140 years through examples that are pertinent today; i..e., who is funding it, how, and to what end. That is what is discussed in the first three links on that same articles page (the one to which you won't refer people directly). Of course, I'm sure you had that bookmarked so that you could pull it right up, but why bother when you could waste my time demanding that I supply it instead?
You haven't changed a bit because you still haven't repented.
Your cruel cynicism here is unwarranted. (I’m over 10 years older than you and am suffering from seemingly interminable distractions. I start to track things down, and then forget what I was looking for.)
About what you called a brick: So you have forgotten that altercation you had with another bright friend of mine at his site? That didn’t turn out well for any of us.
My current conversant isn’t that hair-triggered, but it could have been had I not had easy access to a computer and print out.
And I know about your Patrick Henry essay. Jeesh! Did you forget that I edited it for you? I thought you had something new (see below).
I google searched, and that led to this thread. I was hoping to find the online text from your Natural Process so I could provide it for my friend. Natural Process didn’t come up, but this thread did.
And then in my last comment above I forgot to mention to you that this text has evolved. In it you used the words “unconstitutional” treaties. Isn’t it true that in you current thinking, they actually aren’t unconstitutional because the poison pill allows them?
What I realize now is that you could call them “anti-constitutional” treaties. Isn’t that more accurate? It surely is their aims given the racketeering you’ve documented.
But I forgot to mention it — because I got distracted so easily.
What I was hoping you could provide was new material. In the most recent post (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2881830/posts?page=31#30) someone mentioned the “desertification treaty” and you said you “knew it well.” I thought it was something new. I see now you mentioned it in Treaty Law. I’m sorry, but I never retained memory of it. It was spelled out as much at the 1942 treaty.
Thanks for giving me your time despite your misgivings. I really needed the help. Dammit, I AM trying to help you knucklehead. Our concerns are much the same. Save your cynicism for the big fish racketeers and give the smaller fry a bit more latitude.
When my friend was protesting that the senate would not ratify such treaties, he was strongly implying that I was wasting his time telling him of the dangers from them. He then when went straight to ‘the EPA poses our greatest threat.’ You and I both know how the EPA is manned by the same forces that write the treaties. At the time though, I could not remember the name of the Vienna Convention on Treaties, so I backed off.
As I mentioned earlier, I dare not give him all of your material all at once. His ego had already bristled when I showed he had no recollection of Article VI. In order to forestall his cognitive dissonance from kicking in, I am going to try to give him much of your material gradually. He’s no dummy, he is conservative and not entirely establishmentarian (not RINO and definitely not SKUNC), but he is human. I saw his emotional response to being told that the constitution contained a poison pill, and backed off.
I need to show him how EPA policy is influenced by those treaties that have not be officially ratified. How The Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties wasn’t ratified, but its tenants are in place anyway. That’s will be tough to sell. He’s gonna ask how do they get away with it? The press being in the tank for one. Then they go around acting like that husband caught in the act “who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
Unless you can think of a reason not to, I am going to try get him to consider a couple of paragraphs in you NRDC racketeering essay. Since it’s the EPA he’s most concerned about, that could give him some insights as to how it seems to be unopposed in its outrages.
“The very idea of “Federal government regulations” is an outrage to the original intent of the Constitution (that the people and the courts have accepted it is even worse). There are two reasons: First, it effectively eliminated the natural law competition between State regulations that might restrain their behavior. Second (and more important), the Constitution invested ALL legislative power in Congress. “Rules and regulations,” while having the force of law, are not passed by the elected representatives of the people. Instead, it is the executive branch that drafts, enacts, enforces, and adjudicates regulations, which effectively eliminates the checks and balances that were the very purpose of the separation of powers, never mind representative government. Thus, creating a body of “administrative law” makes corrupting administrative government a matter of one-stop shopping; it is virtually undetectable.
How did they get away with it?
To get past those pesky enumerated and separated powers, the players have invoked a deliberate loophole in the original Constitution, meant to enact a body of clearly unconstitutional law to which our nation as a whole is expected to abide: international law and in particular treaties, now held at the United Nations. These treaties entail obligations requiring powers that exceed constitutional limits, in other words, the government that agreed to the terms did not have the legal power to do so (to learn more about the origins of this massive gambit, please see Treaty Law - The Constitution’s Original Trojan Horse). Treaty law (and not the Constitution) has since been used as authorization for any number of environmental laws, each of which thence spawned a host of regulations. “