Can A Treaty Overturn The Constitution?
Many of us have seen Lord Monckton's video stating that U.S. ratification of a treaty at the upcoming Copenhagen summit could spell an end to our national sovereignty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
There is no question that the NWO is using global warming hysteria to justify an international power grab. But I wondered about the validity of the idea that an international treaty truly could supersede the U.S. Constitution.
This article seems to refute that concept rather nicely:
"Beware the False Idea that Treaties Override the Constitution"
http://www.freedomfirstsociety.org/articles/articles/38/1/Be...
This makes a lot of sense to me.
Why indeed would our founding fathers have been so stupid as to allow the senate (2/3 majority or not) and the president to disembowel our precious Constitution with a mere stroke of a pen?
In our current situation, NO!
We must remember that the entity entering in these contracts is technically a PRIVATE FOREIGN CORPORATION under the IMF and World Bank. This corporation has its own constitution, the Constitution of the United States; whereas we have another constitution called the Constitution of the united States of America.
The entity actually causing all of this chaos is actually at war with the American people, a de facto form of "government"(corporation). We need to go back toward to the de jure Republic. That is already happening I just elected the de jure governor of new jersey state this election cycle.
Everyone is fooled by Corp US doing all these functions, the people need to wake up to these facts. The "government" you speak of IS a CORPORATION and NOT a GOVERNMENT.
I reserve the right to govern myself.
I reserve the right to govern myself.
Yes
if a treaty is signed that affects something in the constitution the treaty overides it. Otherwise there would be no point in the treaty.
If they don't get it through Global Warming it will be an Alien
invasion that they use to try to force the world into a treaty or agreement... mark my words...
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.
There is no objective meaning of the Constitution!
It means what the Supreme Court says it means, no more, no less. If the court decides that the Constitution is superceded by the constitution of a world government by treaty, that's it. It matters not what anyone else thinks. Arguments about the meaning of the Constitution matter not, the court will have ruled.
At that point citizens will have a choice, submit or take action.
No, there is mountains of
No, there is mountains of evidence to suggest that the founders ratified the Constitution with original intent in mind, for example http://www.forfreedomssake.com/blog/resources/Founders%20Her...
The judiciary interprets and applies the laws in specific cases and controversies. But its decisions are not themselves laws or conclusive proof of what the laws are, but only judges' opinions about the laws - opinions which may be correct or incorrect.
Please, mountains of evidence don't matter.
As early as 1819 in McColluch v Maryland the Supreme Court ruled they would not be bound by what the Founders believed, said, or wanted.
Go ahead give the Supreme Court sophisticated arguments, In the end they'll pat you on the head and do what they want. That's the way it works. To think differently is to be naive.
sad but true
sad but true
Ventura 2012
I don't think so.
The constitution is the bi-laws, rules and limitations for the government, the Declaration is the people's independence.
The people's rights are inalienable, god- given, and cannot be taken away except with our consent or by jury.
A treaty may affect the actions and decisions of our government, however it should have no bearing on the individual because it is the people's responsibility to make certain the government is behaving within the confines of the constitution.
People don't make treaties, governments do, and if said treaty is unconstitutional, the people, per Declaration of Independence have the duty to correct the government or abolish it.
"You are not what you think you are, but what you think............. you are".
-Earl Nightingale
Ah, the supremacy clause is the seed of the Constitution's
dissolution. There it is, the sovereignty of the United States can be negotiated away and it's the supreme law of the land.
In the end though the Supreme Court will have the last word. The Founders are not only dead they're irrelevant.
Good thread
worth some thought and discussion.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Complex issue
Courts have ruled that treaties can override certain constitutional provisions (there was a bird migration case of some sort that overrode 10th amendment concerns, I believe). I don't know that they can override the individual rights aspects, but it's a scary proposition.
I support a constitutional amendment that explicitly prevents the USFG from entering into a treaty to abrogate the constitution. That would clear it up.
Another interesting thing to think about, but the ability of the USFG to enter into a treaty was supposed to require the ascent (indirectly) of the states (through the STATES' representatives in the senate). Now that we've stripped away that by directly electing senators, the treaty power should be revisited.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
Constitution is the supreme
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Period end of story.
Not if the people do not
Not if the people do not enforce it.