Posted on 05/28/2002 9:14:19 PM PDT by SpyderTim
We should start something to let the voters of those who voted against this know that theri representative did not vote to keep our service men and women from the clutches of foreign powers who would bring charges against our troops for protecting the soldiers defending our citizens.
With the mood of the country in favor of our troops, this is a campaign issue that all Republicans should use against those who voted against this necessary legislation.
Thanks. I'm on it! Where can I contribute to Daschle's opponent's campaign?
The idea is that if the EUnuchs arrested an American soldier and put him in that kangaroo court anyway, the US armed forces would go in and rescue him and return him to America.
Not if the new world order government is a reality. The fact that even ONE vote was cast against in OUR congress is scary!
Every one of their names should be publicized.
One example of this is Attorney General John Ashcroft’s memo after Sept. 11 urging agencies to stall on Freedom of Information Requests and not to shy away from fighting such demands in court, if it comes to that.
Keeping the government answerable to the people is an erosion of executive power?
Keeping the government answerable to the people is an erosion of executive power?********************
# 15 by Quila
Apparently so.
If I understand the principle, the Executive can ignore any Congressional or Judicial act.
Of course, he would then be threatened with the possibility of impeachment.
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 23 Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 8, 2001
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. DUNCAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.
Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense;
Whereas former President Clinton's designee signed the International Criminal Court Treaty on December 31, 2000;
Whereas the term `crimes of aggression', as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action, thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution;
Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, like United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the United States Government;
Whereas the people of the United States are self-governing, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others;
Whereas the treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial;
Whereas the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids;
Whereas the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a party is not bound to a treaty unless it has consented to be bound;
Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty breaks substantially with accepted norms of international law because it extends its jurisdiction even to the nationals of countries that do not sign and ratify the treaty;
Whereas the International Criminal Court would be empowered unilaterally to investigate, try, and punish certain crimes, contrary to the current international norm of affording countries the primary responsibility for punishing these crimes;
Whereas approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that `[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States', and vested powers cannot be transferred;
Whereas each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States;
Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution;
Whereas in order to make a treaty, the United States Constitution requires the President to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate and the concurrence of the Senate by a 2/3 vote; and
Whereas former President Clinton signed the International Criminal Court Treaty but expressed his intention not to submit the treaty to the Senate, thereby rendering his act procedurally inadequate and unconstitutional: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty; and
(2) President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.
What little brains this creepy, slimey moron has is totally controled by his giant ego.
He cares nothing about what is best for America, only what will feed is giant ego.
This lying, whining, slimey creep has got to go before he does real damage to America just to please his ego.
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.