It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada can pursue TPP trade deal while protecting supply management: Harper

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I wonder if there may be some sort of leverage in the treaty's the Crown signed with the original Nations here .Law and Laws are complicated fikel things so there may be some sort of door in that direction . I was and still under the impression that you really don't have to honor a treaty or treaties .




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Does that mean we are officially considered to be at War right now or is it like one of those technically we are at war things but not officially at war kinda thing???

Like when we start a war somewhere but call it a police action or some other BS to get around having to play by the rules.


It's a technicality type of thing to allow the government extra powers and has been in place since 1933.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

If we really are officially considered to be at War right now then as far as I can tell from reading what is legally considered Treason, you would be right.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

I'm pretty sure that the TPP would qualify as aid and comfort as it would weaken the US against it's enemies. The only way to wiggle out of it would then be to claim that it wasn't intentional or done with that knowledge in mind according to this clause.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.


In Canada the law is pretty much the same. When you at aid and comfort to the enemy, the bank of Canada is owned and operated by the IMF not unlike the FED, so these governments have allowed or promoted foreign powers to have control over the population through extortion. That is against the public interest and only benefits foreign powers, so that in itself speaks of treason. PE Trudeau created that opart of the mess in 1974. Mulroney killed us with NAFTA and opened the door to corporate and job migration that crippled the nation and increased borrowing from the IMF. The same applies to the TPP, it's all treason. Politicians are making laws and decisions that are patently detrimental to the nation and its population.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I wonder if there may be some sort of leverage in the treaty's the Crown signed with the original Nations here .Law and Laws are complicated fikel things so there may be some sort of door in that direction . I was and still under the impression that you really don't have to honor a treaty or treaties .


They will try to claim superior law but the government will probably say the treaty supercedes superior law. Not the case, but between the government flunkies and the TPP lawyers, they would run a war of attrition against anyone who challenged the treaty.

Cheers - Dave



new topics

top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join