Ted Cruz slams the federal government over claim that international treaties trump US law.

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

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.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz. "The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers," Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation. "The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

Wow, certain people, Alex Jones etc., have been claiming for some time that the ultimate plan was to have international law or the UN supersede US law.

Seemed like a somewhat ridiculous claim at the time but here it is...

I do think there is a limited role for international or universally recognized law. The Geneva Conventions for example, which came into being partially as a result of the Nuremberg trials.

No longer was "just following orders" an excuse (although many argue that our government has recently committed plenty of war crimes via Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan etc).

The Geneva conventions also set a standard for international war crimes and crimes against humanity.

But these rules would apply outside of our borders. We already have a domestic set of laws called the Constitution. Too bad most politicians have subverted the Constitution in violation of their oaths.

reply to post by gladtobehere


In the United States nothing should trump the Constitution.

Period.

reply to post by gladtobehere


This and past admins are trying to do a end run around the Constitution, and it looks to me like they are succeeding.

The Nuremberg trials were held as a Allied trial though. It would have been to difficult to hold trials in separate countries, though that did happen later on.

And we now read non citizen enemy combatants their Miranda rights...sheesh!

ETA: The Geneva Convention would apply to us if war was being waged within our borders. Though I'm sure that lawyers would have a good time with that, if there were any lawyers around.

BS. If this passes as legal than I'm going to promote that all countries found a Treaty to remove Obama as President. He wouldn't even BE President without the Constitution...... what a maroon

Metallicus
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

In the United States nothing should trump the Constitution.

Period.

this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it shouldn't be...it's Bond vs. united states... and the argument boils down to states rights in the tenth amendment...but, what is NOT SAID in the article...the DOJ says that the use of chemical weapons should not be a state rights issue, or, you would have 50 different sets of laws regarding the use of chemical weapons...the other side says that this is a states rights issue under the tenth amendment

reply to post by Metallicus


Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution".

The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".

...Here's a perfect example of 'expert' propaganda on the supremacy question: On April 11, 1952, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (cfr), speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky said...
"Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, ...can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."

Mr. Dulles is confused about the People's rights. To repeat an earlier statement of fact: the Constitution doesn't 'give' us rights. The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away.

The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit -- propaganda. Admittedly by propaganda.
"There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time - a long time - will be needed before world government is politically feasible... This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country..."

Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.

The question of "nationhood" in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress. A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture?...

Don't forget the CFR is a Milner Round table, a group dedicated to bring about a one world government.

So who were the Dulles Boys?

Allen Dulles, the Nazis, and the CIA

Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg once stated that "The Dulles brothers were traitors." Some historians believe that Allen Dulles became head of the newly formed CIA in large part to cover up his treasonous behavior and that of his clients.

-- Christian Dewar, Making a Killing


Just before his death, James Jesus Angleton, the legendary chief of counterintelligence... felt betrayed by the people he had worked for all his life. In the end, he had come to realize that they were never really interested in American ideals of "freedom" and "democracy." They really only wanted "absolute power."

Angleton told author Joseph Trento that the reason he had gotten the counterintelligence job in the first place was by agreeing not to submit "sixty of Allen Dulles' closest friends" to a polygraph test concerning their business deals with the Nazis. In his end-of-life despair, Angleton assumed that he would see all his old companions again "in hell."

The study of the past is beset by uncertainty. Experts on ancient inscriptions can easily get into arguments over whether or not two prominent people with the same name were actually a single individual. The student of modern history doesn't normally run into such problems because our lives today are so well documented. But suppose that most present-day records were to be lost in the course of time, leaving only a few semi-mythic narratives. In that case, future historians might well conclude that the only way to make sense of the twentieth century was by assuming that there were actually two Allen Dulleses.

One Allen Dulles, they would tell us, was the head of a powerful group of covert agents who served the great American Republic at mid-century. The other, who lived and worked slightly earlier, had been dedicated to promoting the interests of the Nazi Reich, which was the sworn enemy of the Americans. Despite the coincidence of names, there could obviously have been no connection between them.

We, with our documentation intact, have no choice but to accept that these two Allen Dulleses were one and the same. But the price of our superior knowledge is that for us the twentieth century threatens to make no sense at all....

Back to the first article:

..."This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? ...

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or 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 the 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 which even suggest such a result...

"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. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
...The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations.. the word A nation although not explicit, is certainly implied. The United Nations is an Organization... Their 'expertise' is an illusion created apparently with hopes to instill a sense of inferiority in the 'common man' (their term) so we will all defer to their superior intelligence....

TDawgRex
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

This and past admins are trying to do a end run around the Constitution, and it looks to me like they are succeeding.

The Nuremberg trials were held as a Allied trial though. It would have been to difficult to hold trials in separate countries, though that did happen later on.

And we now read non citizen enemy combatants their Miranda rights...sheesh!

ETA: The Geneva Convention would apply to us if war was being waged within our borders. Though I'm sure that lawyers would have a good time with that, if there were any lawyers around.

edit on 31-10-2013 by TDawgRex because: Just a edit

you didn't read the lawsuit, did you...it's bond vs. the united states...please tell our reading audience HOW this does an "end run around the constitution"?

reply to post by gladtobehere


It has been Obama’s agenda to destroy the constitution since day one. It really ticks me off that so many people (not you, OP) are just now coming to this realization….as if the evidence wasn’t painfully obvious all along!!



This is our reality...and with Hillary licking her chops to drive this bus next, there is no end in sight for this push to strip us of our constitutional protections.

reply to post by crimvelvet


c'mon guys...READ ABOUT THE ACTUAL CASE AND WHAT IS BEING ARGUED!! the constitution has no provision protecting the use of chemical weapons under states rights....this is 2013, for god's sakes, not 1779.

reply to post by jimmyx


Jimmy, please explain to us how this is NOT 100% about the Constitution and it's place or relation to the enforcement of Federal Law with regard to International Treaty? This was also covered on another thread last night, as it happens, so I have the case information handy to share for folks...

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

Contained at that site are also links from the the recent actions on the case to the corresponding court papers. All anyone could want or need for the particulars of the case. It's hard to believe as it's presented by media, but this time? They seem to have it about right.

hello?...hello? anyone out there??....jesus, this entire thread is about bashing Obama and nothing else....can you people read??? are you incapable of understanding what the lawsuit is about???...we all know you right-wingers hate Obama....it's in thread after thread, day in and day out....this involves a supreme court case, do any of you people know what that is?...are you incapable of doing ....oh...maybe...5 minutes of actual research???...

reply to post by jimmyx

this is 2013, for god's sakes, not 1779.

So I guess the slippery slope argument is far too deep for you to comprehend?

Napalitano has been speaking the truth for a long time...you should listen.




Maybe you should read up on the rules for issuing executive orders.

reply to post by gladtobehere

Wow, certain people, Alex Jones etc., have been claiming for some time that the ultimate plan was to have international law or the UN supersede US law.

Seemed like a somewhat ridiculous claim at the time but here it is...

If you had bothered to pay attention it has been happening for years.

International Harmonization
www.cfsan.fda.gov...
newer version: www.fda.gov...

The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
Participation in Codex Alimentarius
Cosmetics International Activities
International Organizations and Standard-Setting Bodies
International Office of Epizootics
International Plant Protection Convention
World Health Organization
Food and Agricultural Organization
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Microbiological Risk Assessments
Pan American Health Organization
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

This is why the USA got stuck with Animal Traceability and the Food UNSAFE Modernization Act. It was not wanted by the American people it was shoved down our throats via propaganda from the MSM.

NOT ONE media outlet (including the Rockefeller funded Organic Consumers) mentioned the FDA implemented the INTERNATIONAL HACCP regs in 1996 that turned food safety completely over to the corporations or the fact the Food borne diseases in the USA DOUBLED after that.

Instead we were told the USA had NOT up dated food safety in "Years" and it needed "Modernization" What a !@#$& LIE!!!

HACCP'S Disconnect From Public Health Concerns
...known as Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP). This paper will address the initial justification for and implementation of the HACCP ideal, which has numerous adverse implications for public health imperatives...

When the Jack In The Box (JITB) outbreak occurred in 1993, four children died and hundreds of consumers were sickened. FSIS responded by mandating the meat industry implement HACCP as a “science based” method of preventing, eliminating or reducing the pathogen load in domestic meat plants. HACCP had originally been invented by Pillsbury in the 1960’s as their attempt to provide guaranteed safe and wholesome food for NASA usage. It is important to realize that Pillsbury authored HACCP on a “cost plus” contractual basis with the federal government, and was intended for use solely for ready-to-eat (RTE) food. FSIS attempt to force HACCP into the raw food system has met substantial difficulties....
In several public hearings and during intensive industry training prior to HACCP’s implementation, FSIS personnel described HACCP in the following manner:

1. Under the HACCP umbrella, FSIS’ involvement would be “Hands Off”.

2. FSIS would no longer police the industry, but the industry must police themselves.

3. FSIS would dissolve its previous command and control functions, to which all plants responded “Alleluia!”

4. Each plant must write its own HACCP Plan, since no two plants are exactly alike.

5.FSIS will not have the authority to tell plants how to write their HACCP Plans. Since national standards would be eliminated, the agency cannot require individual plants to comply with agency standards because under HACCP, one size does not fit all.

The two foundational premises on which HACCP was constructed were (a) prevention and (b) corrective actions to prevent recurrences....

In less than 100 years since the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, USDA unilaterally and voluntarily relinquished much of its congressionally-mandated authority back to the industry. FSIS’ promise to maintain a “Hands Off” non-inspection role in the industry should have raised red flags...


The big slaughter plants quickly qualified. This little-known fact, and its timely implementation, quickly revealed that the agency lacked the intestinal fortitude to conduct microbial testing at the large slaughter plants. Instead, the agency directed its testing at the smaller downline plants, the majority of which do not slaughter....

It is imperative to realize that E.coli and Salmonella are “enteric” bacteria, which by definition means they emanate from within animals’ intestines, and by extension, proliferate on manure-covered hides. The downline, further processing plants which do not slaughter have no intestines or hides on their premises. Therefore, when E.coli or Salmonella are detected at these downline further processing plants, the detections quickly reveal that the source slaughter plants are successfully shipping pathogen-laden meat into commerce in containers bearing the official USDA Mark of Inspection.

Unfortunately, history has shown that when FSIS has detected enteric pathogens at these downline facilities, agency enforcement actions are almost exclusively directed at these victimized downline further processing plants, while virtually ignoring tracebacks to the true origin of contamination. Frequently victimized downline plants are charged with having multiple failures in their HACCP plan, and required to perform HACCP reassessments in order to prevent recurrences. At this juncture, the allegedly “science based” foundation of HACCP ruptures. As long as FSIS mandates corrective actions at the destination of pathogens, rather than at the origin of contamination, recurring production of pathogen-laden meat is virtually guaranteed....

For the results of this idiotic policy driven by the international Ag cartel SEE: SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA's “Don't Look, Don't Know” Policy

About the AG Cartel & WTO, SEE:WTO, GMO and Total Spectrum Dominance

One of the most influential in creating the WTO is a little-publicized organization called the IPC– the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, shortened to International Policy Council.

The IPC was created in 1987 to lobby for the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at the Uruguay GATT talks.

The IPC is controlled by US-based agribusiness giants which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade. In Washington itself, the USDA no longer represents interests of small family farmers. It is the lobby of giant global agribusiness. The USDA is a revolving door for these private agribusiness giants to shape friendly policies. GMO policy is the most blatant example...

reply to post by gladtobehere


So are you saying that if the local police don't have a problem with you trying to poison someone, it would violate your constitutional rights if the FBI busted you?

jimmyx
hello?...hello? anyone out there??....jesus, this entire thread is about bashing Obama and nothing else....can you people read??? are you incapable of understanding what the lawsuit is about???...we all know you right-wingers hate Obama....it's in thread after thread, day in and day out....this involves a supreme court case, do any of you people know what that is?...are you incapable of doing ....oh...maybe...5 minutes of actual research???...

Sadly many are incapable of seeing this thread as anything other than a chance to froth at the mouth and shout insults at Obama. Research? Fat chance!

reply to post by seabag

It has been Obama’s agenda to destroy the constitution since day one.

It has been the Bush's Clinton AND Obama's goal. Heck it has been the goal for the last EIGHT DECADES!

Pascal Lamy was the director-general of the World Trade Organization from 2005 to 2013. This is the international organization I mentioned above. They work Hand in Fist with the UN.

Lamy states very bluntly:

...This raises a final challenge: How to provide global leadership?...

The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty...

Do you have to be hit with a hammer to get your attention? This has been the PLAN for decades!

I think people like jimmyx and seabag need to understand that many people have already removed themselves from the "left/right" paradigm and that it is more about the GOVERNMENT in general. The Government is seeking to destroy fundamental rights granted to us by the Constitution by allowing international treaties to override what is written in the Constitution. No, these rights aren't being DIRECTLY eroded with reference to Chemical weapons that are cited as the reason for this movement. The problem is that once a precedent is set, it opens the door for these treaties to override our National laws and rights.

It wouldn't matter to me if it was Obama, Bush, Reagan, JFK, Tom Cruise, or John Madden. The problem isn't one person, and it isn't the Democrats or the Republicans.. It is the vast majority of public officials and our government as a whole. It's getting out of control.

I'm sick of people trying to undermine truly meaningful posts by degrading the conversation into a Left Vs Right argument. The Left / Right Paradigm is doing exactly what it was built to do.. Divide the people and occupy them with the notion that everything can be divided into only two political parties. It draws attention away from the real issues by splitting the field into a "my team vs your team" argument instead of a "Is this the right thing or not?" argument.

ZiggyMojo

I'm sick of people trying to undermine truly meaningful posts by degrading the conversation into a Left Vs Right argument.

Wise words from a wise man.
I was about to comment:

"So to dislike Obama, I MUST be right-wing? I can't dislike him for endlessly eroding freedoms or illegally murdering hundreds of thousands with executive orders and endless wars? I can't dislike him for sabotaging the economy? I can't dislike him for the wealth funneling disaster of the ACA? Instead, I have to be in a club first?"

But your post was marvellous and is far more eloquent than anything I could have written.

-Amitabha-

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


well, at least you read it...how blaming Obama for this even comes into play is beyond me, since this case was around long before Obama

sblog.s3.amazonaws.com...

this PDF pretty much sums up how I feel...my main point is that with the tenth amendment, it would be up to the individual states to decide, and take legal action on chemicals used for weapons in the future that would be much more harmful and have a broader impact....besides, the constitution does give the US government broad latitude in constructing treaties, it is not so narrowly defined as some would believe.

This thread is a train wreck. First of all anyone who thinks Obama has anything to do with this is clueless. Here is the case. Bond vs US and here is the ruling that it would like to review and overturn from 1920. Missouri vs Holland. The case is really dealing with a ruling from the 1920s dealing with a US treaty created to overide state rights on water fowl. The case said that the treaty was valid and within the powers of Congress. So this has nothing to do with the NWO or Obama it has to with overturning a past ruling. Some of you people do not even try and think you just toss on your NWO, anti Obama, Fema camp crazy talk a go with it. Talk about sheep.