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.

 

Obama's DOJ Supreme Court Case- Charge American Under International Treaty To trump Constitution

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Please oh please, why is this administration constantly battling our constitution? If there is not some evil plan, there certainly should be. The Justice Department is going before the Supreme Court to argue that the Obama administration has the authority to trump the Constitution with international treaties.

What sparked this case is Bond Vs. US. In a cheating husband situation, Carol Bond put poison in the muffler of the pregnant girlfriends car. Bond was indicted for stealing mail and for a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. (International ban on chemical weapons)

The Obama admin is arguing that they have the right to indict her under an international treaty, thus forfeiting her rights to being tried by the state or local courts.

Now where this can get sticky is that this would set precedent for a whole gamete of issues such as gun control.


Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.




The Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.

"If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states' rights to regulate abortion," she told the Washington Examiner.

Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution

Here are also some quotes from The Blaze about the issue.



Texas Senator Ted Cruz is stepping up to the plate to fight this globalist broadside.

“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner. “The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty

In a speech delivered to the Heritage Foundation, Cruz said the Justice Department’s arguments before the highest court represent “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment and other constitutional rights the global elite are working overtime to eradicate.


Obama’s Justice Department Argues Before Supremes: International Treaties Trump Constitution




posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I have thoroughly come to the conclusion that Obama's education in constitutional law was strictly for evil purposes. In other words instead of using it for good, he is using his knowledge for finding ways to circumvent our constitution.

Why all this trouble over a simple case of plotting to murder someone? Just give her a trial by jury and lock her up. Why do we need all this extra treaty and supreme court business if Obama wasn't planning to use this for some future evil plot? This makes no sense otherwise.
edit on 31-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


which goes against our founding Laws,,,and by that i mean Westernized system of Law. Which is based upon, Precepts.
a person has a right too trial by thier peers.
A European Court of Justice,,is NOT your Peer. the guy down the street is.
Damn u fought a Colonial war,, and a Second world war too prove it.
so it is also a Law based upon blood split ,for its foundation.
Should be a no brainer.
edit on 10/31/2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/31/2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Well, if Obama needs his clock cleaned by the 9 Robed Ones again, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to do some cleaning.

He hasn't won much of anything worth mention since he made fools of them before a world audience at his early State of the Union Speech. No one takes ridicule well. Even Supreme Court Justices.

I don't get him. He was, we're told, a Constitutional Scholar of sorts. At least enough to have been giving lectures and helping with courses on the subject way back when. I'd sure like to see just what grades he got while studying it. I'm thinking.....A+ wasn't quite the mark he managed.

He's sure lost any understanding of Separation of Powers and the fact he is 1 of 3 EQUAL Branches. By no means has be got one inch of power OVER Judicial or Legislative ..and both, I believe, are about tired of him assuming he does.

This should be fun to watch when they issue their decision.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
How come is it that all these problems just happen to come up in such a way that the only solution means they have to take another bite out of our personal freedoms?

Is it intentional? Is it premeditated? Maybe, maybe not...

One thing I do know for sure though is that what we are seeing now is, at the very least, the inevitable conclusion of a system that encourages a new piece of legislation every time an ant farts:

Something bad happens? - new legislation
Someone does something stupid? - new legislation
Not bringing in enough revenue in fines? - new legislation
Someone offends somebody? - new legislation
CEO buddy whines about his pockets not filling fast enough? - new legislation
Someone tells you "No sir, you can't do that, it violates the constitution"? - new legislation
Found a segment of society you don't already have completely under your thumb? - new legislation

You'd be amazed at the stuff that's illegal - you just don't know it because nobody is enforcing it yet...we've all broken the law at some point - Guaranteed



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


So Carnival Cruz said something and the "EXAMINER" for fugs sakes reported it and it is gospel. Then the other confirming link is Infowars.

Ha ha ha ha. Cat litter for the front page.

Find us a USSC case that is before the court. I am NOT going to do your work for you. But go a. and substantiate this garbage. Get a PACER account.


On edit:



The Constitution has the final say
A treaty has the force of a law, which means that it's subject to constitutional constraints. In theory, if a treaty conflicted with the Bill of Rights, it would be overturned by the Supreme Court, which has final power to rule on constitutional issues.

(That applies only to US citizens. If it violates the rights of people in other countries, it's up to their constitution to protect them.)

In practice the Supreme Court has yet to find a treaty unconstitutional, but the treaty adoption process does not override the Constitution.
Sources: www.asil.org...


edit on 31-10-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-10-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)


On edit again:

I was wrong. I am sorry
edit on 31-10-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I am of the opinion that only someone who pretty thoroughly understands the Constitution is capable of this kind of skulduggery to circumvent it. Consider: If he were as stupid about the Constitution as the average American, he wouldn't be nearly so clever in understanding its limitations on federal power—the very limitations he's so intent on finding creative "solutions" to.

Oh, I'm sure he has a lot of assistance in it. But he definitely knows what questions to ask....



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


(sigh) Had you even looked before saying that?? Wow... Here is your Supreme Court Case...and it didn't require a Pacer Account. Just one search on Google and it came in the top 5 hits.


Issue: (1) Whether the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations; and (2) whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s decision in Missouri v. Holland.

Source: SCOTUSBlog - Bloomberg Law

Here are the last several actions on this case, and the dates they happened.


Aug 19 2013 CIRCULATED.
Aug 20 2013 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 5, 2013.

Aug 29 2013 Application (13A237) to extend the time to file a reply brief on the merits from
September 9, 2013 to September 16, 2013, submitted to Justice Alito.

Sep 4 2013 Application (13A237) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until September 16, 2013.

Sep 11 2013 Record from USCA Third Circuit is electronic.

Sep 11 2013 Record from the USDC for the District of Pennsylvania is electronic.

Sep 16 2013 Reply of petitioner Carol Anne Bond filed. (Distributed)

Oct 7 2013 Motion of Cato Institute, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument DENIED.


That's the summary of the case and it sounds about what the OP is saying it is. It's in Legalese, of course, but not that hard to make out.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

GrantedBail
reply to post by elouina
 


So Carnival Cruz said something and the "EXAMINER" for fugs sakes reported it and it is gospel. Then the other confirming link is Infowars.

Ha ha ha ha. Cat litter for the front page.

Find us a USSC case that is before the court. I am NOT going to do your work for you. But go a. and substantiate this garbage. Get a PACER account.




edit on 31-10-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

All you had to do was ask politely.
I am always happy to help someone that is incapable.

For starters, here is the original supreme court case where as the plaintiff (Bond) prevailed and that the original court finding was found to be unconstitutional.

BON D v . U N ITED ST ATE S

Next I am off to look for info on the next case. (edited to add that Wrabbit found it already. )


edit on 31-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well, I stand corrected Wrabbit.

I saw the sources of the story and smelled brown stuff.

So the White House is filing an Amicus Brief in defense of this treaty?? Is that the gist??

It wouldn't be the first time.

I owe an apology to the OP.

I knee-jerk sometimes.

Forgive me.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thank you for finding this, I am off to brew a cup of coffee in my spare time. I think a writer for the Washington Examiner would put himself in an awfully bad light reporting on something that was a total made up lie. That would likely be the end of his career and hardly worth it.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


"Amicus Brief" i thought it was an Atticus Brief,,Scopes Trial,, what got me interested in Lawyers,,





posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


I have already apologized twice. I am sorry.

But the Examiner is right there with the NY Post, The Daily Mail, and the Washington Times. It has just a tad more street cred than Before It's News.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


No biggy.. and my tone was a bit sharp too. I do apologize on that. It's been a long day and a longer night.

It's true enough that the sheer flood of anti-Obama stuff is hard to sift, eh? I mean, I'm obviously no fan of the guy, but I'll also be the first to say he deserves accuracy regarding his actions and past as much as anyone I would like.

Some in the media these days seem to just write whatever they hear somewhere and with little more support than that, as we all see in stories. To be honest? I groaned and rolled my eyes when I first saw the .line on this one and before even seeing who wrote it or reading more. Such are the nonsense ones media puts out at times ..this sounded too wild to be true...but yikes! There it is, eh? What are they thinking?


edit on 31-10-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


On remand the case went back to the Third Circuit; however, they cited Missouri v. Holland as precedent that the U.S. can enforce valid treaties as federal law. As federal law, the treaty (law) would supersede any state statutes through the supremacy clause.

The DOJ is trying to cite Missouri v Holland, in order to state their claim that they can enforce a valid treaty as federal law to uphold their conviction.


The Supreme Court certified modified versions of both questions from Bond's subsequent appeal of the Third Circuit's new decision:
1.Whether the Constitution provides any limitations on federalism in the course of implementing via statute legally valid treaties.
2.Whether an interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act can be made to avoid reviewing Holland.


The SCOTUS doesn't want to have to review Holland, it appears. However as Severino pointed out, if it is upheld, it will set a dangerous precedent by allowing the DOJ to circumvent the Constitution through any treaty entered into by the U.S. So yes, it would mean they could use it to strip gun rights, etc. through U.N. (or other international) treaties that are in conflict with our Constitutionally protected rights (i.e. the BOR).
edit on 10/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


This is NOT a case of a International Treaty vs. US Law.

It is a case of Federal vs. State law.

en.wikipedia.org...(2011)



Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), is a Tenth Amendment case; the Supreme Court of the United States decided in late June 2011 that standing can sometimes be established by individuals, not just states, when Tenth Amendment challenges are raised in objection to a federal law.




In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that Bond had standing to argue that a federal statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention in this instance intruded on areas of police power reserved to the states.


YES...there is the "Chemical Weapons Convention"...BUT there is also a FEDERAL STATUTE enforcing this convention within the United States and that FEDERAL STATUTE is the law involved, NOT the treaty

en.wikipedia.org...(2011)



The Chemical Weapons Convention obligates the United States to outlaw the use, production, and retention of weapons consisting of toxic chemicals. The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act outlaws the possession or use of toxic chemicals, except for peaceful purposes.

www.fas.org...

The Chemical Weapons Convention...is the TREATY

The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act .......is the LAW that congress passed.

Federal Law vs. States Rights



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Please add comments to the more developed thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join