Title: LTC Allen West - The Revolution / American Freedom Tour Source:
youtube URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M Published:Oct 19, 2010 Author:Allen West Post Date:2010-10-19 19:45:49 by Flintlock Keywords:Allen West, Fix Bayonets! Views:577 Comments:76
Otherwise I don't particularly care to discuss this again with someone stuck in failing mode in remedial logic.
And I'm not interested in debating people who have no solution to a problem.
That problem being: Barry Soetoro and his RAT cronies have control of the entire government and are ramming socialism down the throats of the American people.
Currently Ron Klein, a complete scumbag and Obama buttboy is the Congressman from the 22d district of FL. Klein is as bad as they get.
Now YOU'RE giving me shit for backing West, a guy who calls the gov Tyrannical?
Eric, the difference between you and I , is that I want Klein O-U-T, and I have a candidate and a plan to get him out.
You have???
Please, tell us how you're going to get did of Klein? You do have a plan, don't you?
He's no fan of the UN Another completely irrelevant issue post-9/11.
Today, in 2010, our own US FedGov is far more dangerous to our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than the UN ever was or could possibly be if we had a sovereign nation not run by Zionists!
This truly is not a difficult concept, yet so many here seem to struggle with it.
If this/these wars are not terminated, the costs thereby reduced drastically, and our "homeland" not restored to a pre-9/11 condition, sorry, but we're simply fucked. There's no use in sugar-coating it. It'll be Orwell's 1984 coming alive.
I'VE NEVER SEEN SUCH A DISPLAY OF IGNORANCE COMING FROM YOU!
1. The United Nations has its own Constitution. Any member "STATE" must abide by that Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that any Treaty made by the U.S. with an outside entity supercedes the U.S. Constitution. The UN, which has its headquarters in New York, the land and building being donated by the Rockefellers, (or was it the Rothschilds? doesn't matter- no difference)is slated to be the military seat of the New World Order. In fact the NNPT is just a weapons confiscations program to arm the UN. The Zionists do not have a seat on the Security Council of the UN. They have signed no Treaties with them. Make of that what you can!
2. True we are a ZOG and have been fighting endless wars for Israel, but to restore our COUNTRY to pre 9/11 conditions is the pipe dream of a complete fool. We need to go back to 1913 to restore this country to pre-Federal Reserve status or we're simply fucked. Re: the Zionists - as Ahmedinejad has said - the Zionist Regime must be ended. That may mean more war, this time with a well armed nuclear state. We signed the NNPT, as did many other nations. Our armed forces are exhausted and depleted.
This truly is not a difficult concept, yet so many here seem to struggle with it.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that any Treaty made by the U.S. with an outside entity supercedes the U.S. Constitution.
I believe you are mistaken on this. I believe that Reid v. Covert answered this question - at least for now. Since our rule of law/justice system is completely arbitrary, that can easily change if it fits the needs of the government.
With all due respect, the Reid vs Covert case was in regard to an executive agreement- Not a treaty!
A sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty.[1] Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties)
In this case the litigant was the wife of a military officer. Furthermore, the case IN NO WAY set a precedent for the status of Treaties that have been ratified by the two-thirds of the Senate.
With all due respect, the Reid vs Covert case was in regard to an executive agreement- Not a treaty!
The Constitution supersedes all treaties ratified by the United States Senate. The military may not try the civilian wife of a soldier under military jurisdiction.
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm
From the decision itself, written by Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas, and Justice Brennan
..."II.
At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American servicemen or their dependents. 29 For its part, the United States agreed that these military courts would be willing and able to try and to punish all offenses against the laws of Great Britain by such persons. In all material respects, the same situation existed in Japan when Mrs. Smith [354 U.S. 1, 16] killed her husband. 30 Even though a court-martial does not give an accused trial by jury and other Bill of Rights protections, the Government contends that Art. 2 (11) of the UCMJ, insofar as it provides for the military trial of dependents accompanying the armed forces in Great Britain and Japan, can be sustained as legislation which is necessary and proper to carry out the United States' obligations under the international agreements made with those countries. The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on 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 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 of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 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. 32
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. 33 For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 , it declared: "The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [354 U.S. 1, 18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."
This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. 34 It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.
There is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 , which is contrary to the position taken here. There the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier. 35
I have scoped the net looking for a rebuttle to continue this debate. It appears there are many opinions, pro and con, on this controversial issue that have been raging for years.
I have found an article that has explained it to my satisfaction:
Treaties are voluntary agreements to refrain from certain acts that would, in the absence of a treaty, be perfectly within a nation's right to carry out. So, for example, a treaty that bans the production of new nuclear weapons places certain limits on Congress. Specifically, it acts as a limitation on Congress' power to "raise and support armies." An action that Congress would have been free to do is now illegal. Still, it's hard to see why that would be unconstitutional. All treaties limit the power of the state. That is, all treaties take away the right to do certain things that the state otherwise would have had the Constitutional power to do. Tom's reading of the Constitutionality would, I think, simply have the effect of making all treaties unconstitutional. That reading, however, would pretty clearly run counter to the intent of the Framers. The questions and points in order:
1. (re: surrendering US sovereignty to an international body) "isn't this just what treaties are supposed to do?" - No, I do not believe it is within the power of the US government to cede sovereignty , as the sovereign power is merely delegated to the US government and resident in fact within the people of the United States. Cession of sovereignty would require, as I have mentioned above, a referendum or process at least on par with the original Constitutional Convention, and not simply on a 2/3rds vote of the Senate. Treaties in this sense are like laws, which do not surrender sovereignty but are in fact instantiations of it.
2. "Treaties are voluntary agreements to refrain from certain acts that would, in the absence of a treaty, be perfectly within a nation's right to carry out." - emphasis added on voluntary. Again, it would seem to require more than a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to make legal the compulsion of "specific performance" of this magnitude; the US may break its treaties and suffer the reputational fallout as it happens, but at no point does a treaty decisively constrain ultimate congressional authority, which is derived from the Constitution.
3. "So, for example, a treaty that bans the production of new nuclear weapons places certain limits on Congress. Specifically, it acts as a limitation on Congress' power to 'raise and support armies.' An action that Congress would have been free to do is now illegal." - More precisely, so long as Congress does not amend the law, the Executive branch of the US Government (and state governments and private entities in the US, in accordance with the supremacy clause) is barred from producing new nuclear weapons. It may be pedantry, but Congress proposes, the executive disposes (or however the phrase goes)- Congress may yet abrogate or amend the treaty by law or by directing the executive / President to renegotiate the treaty; it is not barred from taking up the matter again except to the extent that it is concerned about the reputation and good name, faith, and standing of the US people and government; unlike say, in a case of an amendment to the Constitution forbidding the production of nuclear weapons, where Congress may not change policy or take up the matter at all, save through further amendment.
4. "All treaties limit the power of the state. That is, all treaties take away the right to do certain things that the state otherwise would have had the Constitutional power to do." - Not true, for the reasons laid out above. A more correct rephrasing would be: "All treaties limit the power of the state on the margin. That is, all treaties proximally take away the right constrain state policy choices that the state otherwise would have had the Constitutional power to do so choose." The reformulation is, of course, pretty flaccid, but at least its correct.
5. "Tom's reading of the Constitutionality would, I think, simply have the effect of making all treaties unconstitutional. That reading, however, would pretty clearly run counter to the intent of the Framers." - So would a reading that implied that the Constitution could be amended by 2/3rds vote of the Senate, as the Framers rather explicitly told us what their intent was in that regard:
Article V - The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; [...]
To bind congress, or more specifically to absolutely and in a binding fashion change the authority vested in Congress by the Constitution, one must amend the Constitution.
In long, the point again: since the Constitution is the ultimate source of authority in the US government, and as it trumps both law and treaty when there is conflict; and as the Constitution may not be amended by treaty but by manner prescribed by the Constitution; and as it would require an amendment to the Constitution to substantively modify Congress' warmaking authority; the UN treaty therefore is not a legal constraint upon the US Congress' warmaking authority, and Congressional AsUMF or declarations of war are necessary and sufficient for a US war's legality
It appears to me (AngK), by the above, that the Constitution authorizes the Treaty under Sec.2 Article 6 and then must amend the Constitution in order to nullify the Treaty. No wonder it is so confusing, both Treaty and Constitution are interdependant.