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.

 

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

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Like I mentioned in my thread about this earlier, Obama's DOJ Supreme Court Case- Charge American Under International Treaty To trump 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.




posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I am not blaming any one person.
I blame the whole system.

-Amitabha-
edit on 31-10-2013 by Eryiedes because: Typo



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


GOOD GRIEF how can you PRINT THIS in your opening post



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...


and then deny it is about treaties and the Constitution??

Bureaus/Offices Reporting Directly to the Secretary » Office of the Legal Adviser » Treaty Affairs » Frequently Asked Questions » Circular 175 procedure


...Such determinations generally are made on a case-by-case basis. In making these determinations, the Office of Treaty Affairs will evaluate several factors described in 22 CFR 181.2, including whether the agreement is intended to be legally binding on the governments under international law.



A Circular 175 memorandum will generally address, where applicable, the following issues:

* The proposed agreement's principal features, indicating any special problems that may be encountered and, if possible, the contemplated solutions to those problems;

* The policy benefits to the United States, as well as potential risks;

* Whether congressional consultations on the agreement have been or will be undertaken;

* The funding sources that will be committed by execution of the proposed agreement;
* Whether the proposed agreement reasonably could be expected to have a significant regulatory impact on domestic entities or persons...

* An analysis of the issues surrounding the agreement's implementation as a matter of domestic law (e.g., whether the agreement is self-executing, whether domestic implementing legislation or regulations will be necessary before or after the agreement's execution...

www.state.gov...


Looks like we are a bit late on this one guys. They have already decided International Treadies supersede the Constitution if you read between the lines.


The WTO and Agriculture I mentioned above shows this. The Corporations make a decision get an international treaty and then push it. Citizens are completely left out of the loop.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


You are correct, sir. Too many people subscribe to the left/right way of thinking anymore, not realizing that it has never been left vs. right, it has always been people vs. govt. The two political parties have a novel way of making people think that it's left vs. right. The debt ceiling fiasco proves that the two sides have more loyalty to their party than to the American people or the government in general. Treasonous at worst and down right despicable at best.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


" the problem is that once a precedent is set, it opens the door for these treaties to override our national laws and rights"

this part of your implication I do not agree with...treaties have been broken, changed, and done away with, down through the history of our nation. this is why the constitution was framed to be a "living document", the framers knew that there would be many "grey areas" in the future of this country, simply due to changing times. this is why they did not go into a hard and fast detailed list of all the states rights powers. but I do agree that this shouldn't be a left/right argument. apparently, I wasn't clear enough in expressing that in my posts.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Cruz is correct....but


just like the USA signed on to many international treaties until the present date... those treaties did not Trump the Federal Government


take for instance the chemical & biological weapons ban treaties the USA signed on to...

well decades later the USA still has a lot of those weapons still stored but not destroyed.... so here's a proper example on just how we should behave with international treaties --- the Treaty does not Trump the USA and USA policies so that we blindly and obediently obey the strict letter-of-the-Treaty, the USA can, as it chooses to participate in the Treaty guidelines but only to the extent that the Treaty conditions do not impare our ability to defend ourselves




blind acquiesence to international treaties is a form of surrendering Soverignty...
or the same as: the president bowing to emperors (as in Japan) or faux leaders/ idiotic potentates like Karzi...~the repeating of the shameful street theatre like Øbama done on several diplomatic visits to other countries~
edit on 31-10-2013 by St Udio because: there was a missing 'a' that needed put in there



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Once the precedent is set that international laws override Constitutional laws/rights then it MOST DEFINITELY makes it easier for that to happen with others. You have to lay a foundation before you can build a house. Plain and simple.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

jimmyx

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"?


Yes I did read the article. I do like how you seem to assume a lot though. I was commenting upon the comments made by the OP.

Yet, I still see this action as the progressives getting their foot in the door to continue to subvert our Constitution. They use this tactic all the time.

Nice try at redirection though.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 



Looks like we are a bit late on this one guys. They have already decided International Treadies supersede the Constitution if you read between the lines.


No, the Constitution provides for ratification of treaties by a vote of Congress, which is elected by the people. If a treaty is ratified it becomes, in effect, law of the land. Thus, if you commit a crime in a country with which the United States has an extradition treaty, you can be arrested and sent to that country for trial even if you have committed no crime on US soil. The case in question seems to be an attempt to clarify whether the Federal government can prosecute a case as a more serious infraction than it would be locally. (Presumably the local court considered it to be simple harassment; the Feds are trying to make it attempted murder and citing a definition from international law to make their case.)

In other words, no, international treaties do not supersede the Constitution, they are contained in the Constitution!



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Galvatron
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


You are correct, sir. Too many people subscribe to the left/right way of thinking anymore, not realizing that it has never been left vs. right, it has always been people vs. govt. The two political parties have a novel way of making people think that it's left vs. right. The debt ceiling fiasco proves that the two sides have more loyalty to their party than to the American people or the government in general. Treasonous at worst and down right despicable at best.


In this I believe that you are wrong to a degree. The progs will always use divisive tactics because people are so easily swayed. I also believe that most of the R's and D's in that cesspool of a government are progressives. I think that we the people are being played with this case.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Wake up and read what's in front of you.

This has nothing to do with Obama.

Very simply - They want to use International Treaty Law to apply to poisoning cases. That would give International Treaty Law judicial precedent over domestic law and by extension the Constitution of the United States in this case and then in other cases by extension.

There are plenty of very fine domestic laws, including Federal ones, that prevent the use of chemical weapons without having to use International Treaty Law to prosecute under. Therefore, the use of International Treaty is only to create this precedent so that they can use other international treaty provisions in other cases to trump the constitution - places like gun control, rights of the child, etc.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 





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.


Thank goodness someone GETS IT.

jimmyx and seabag are so focused on defending the Progressives The won't wake up until the feel the Serf's Collar click shut around their neck and discover the 'Socialists' they are defending are actually the Banksters and international Corporate Cartels Who HATE capitalism (aka COMPETITION) and LOVE socialism (captive market) as long as they are in control of government.

Darn it READ MOTHER JONES!

Dwayne Andreas was CEO of Archer Daniels Midland Co.

...From the postwar food-aid programs that opened new markets in the Third World to the subsidies for corn, sugar, and ethanol that are now under attack as "corporate welfare," ADM's bottom line has always been interwoven with public policy. To reinforce this relationship, Andreas has contributed impressively to the campaigns of politicians, from Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole...

Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. "There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country."

It might seem odd that a man with personal assets well into nine figures would be so quick to hoist the red flag of socialism over the American heartland. But Andreas is essentially right...



If you would ever bothered to look at the board of directors of our major news media, it shows an intertwining of banksters and corporations. Heck JP Mrgan bought up the important newspapers right after the passage of the Federal Reserve act. Since then we have had FIVE Congress Critters go after the FED in the last hundred years.

The news media is all pretty much bias Progressive, so how do you reconcile that with CORPORATION directors and Bankster control HMMMmm? Why do they all support 'Socialism' with the exception of the Controlled Opposition, Fox News?



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





In other words, no, international treaties do not supersede the Constitution, they are contained in the Constitution!


The second amendment confirms the rights of citizens to own guns as a means of giving citizens control over the government.

So if a President signs a treaty making it illegal for the general population to own guns and this is ratified by Congress.

Which wins. The second Amendment or the international treaty?



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Reason they call it the Dept of Just Us and the Criminal Just Us System

Us doesn't stand for the United States

Us stands for the ones in powerful positions (Politicians, CEOs, Billionaires, Trillionaires) which are exempt from all the laws they make for the masses.


Us stands for The ones in Genesis 3 verse 22 "Behold, the man has become as one of "Us" to know what is good and what is evil."


No mystery.


HERE ARE FACTS MOST DON'T KNOW, BUT SHOULD...
1. The IRS is not a US government agency. It is an agency of the IMF
(International Monetary Fund) (Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al.
CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148
pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)
2. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the U.N. (Black's
Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)
3. The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch 214
page 654)
4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF (International Monetary Fund)
(Presidential Documents Volume 24-No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-2887)
5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no
longer a United States! No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of
bankruptcy it is finally over. (Executive Order 12803)
6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never
part of the U.S. government, even though the "U.S. Government" held stock
in the agencies. (U.S. v Strang, 254 US491 Lewis v. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239)
7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the U.N. through the IMF
(International Monetary Fund). The application for a Social Security Number
is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms
and not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state
who publishes them while the old form states they are "Department of the
Treasury". (20 CFR (Council on
Foreign Relations) Chap. 111 Subpart B. 422.103 (b))
8. There are NO Judicial courts in America and have not been since 1789.
Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce
Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat
138-178)
9. There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have
just been administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1
Stat. 138-178)
10. According to GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) you
MUST have a Social Security number. (House Report (103-826)
11. New York City is defined in Federal Regulations as the United Nations.
Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that "New York City is the capital of the
World." For once, he told the truth. (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)
Chap. 111, subpart B 44.103 (b) (2) (2) )
12. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund.
(Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619 Steward Co. v. Davis 301 US 548)
13. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF (International
Monetary Fund), which is an agency of the United Nations. (It says "U.S.
Department of Treasury" at the top left corner, which again is part of the
U.N. as pointed out above)
14. You own NO property. Slaves can't own property. Read carefully the Deed
to the property you think is yours. You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate
Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
15. The most powerful court in America is NOT the United States Supreme
court, but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 PA. C.S.A. 502)
16. The King of England financially backed both sides of the American
Revolutionary War. (Treaty of Versailles-July 16, 1782 Treaty of Peace 8 Stat
80)
17. You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you
are NOT a party to it! The U.S. Constitution applies to the CORPORATION OF
THE UNITED STATES, a privately owned and operated corporation
(headquartered out of Washington, DC) much like IBM (International Business
Machines, Microsoft, et al) and NOT to the people of the sovereign Republic
of the united States of America. (Padelford Fay & Co. v The Mayor and
Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)
18. America is a British Colony. The United States is a corporation, not a land
mass and it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British Troops did not leave until 1796 (Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8
Stat 116, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of
Association October 20, 1774)
19. www.youtube.com...
20. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)
21. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States (Elements of
Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)
22. A 1040 Form is for tribute paid to Britain (IRS Publication 6209)
23. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest
and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)
24. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of
people.(Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)
25. The Pope's laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec,
lib, ix, c. vii, n. 4. Prati, 1844 Syllabus Prop 28, 29, 44)
26. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing, NOT even what we think are
our children. (Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154
N.E. 146, Senate Document 438 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v.
People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)
27. Military dictator George Washington divided up the States (Estates) in to
Districts (Messages and papers of the Presidents Volume 1 page 99 1828
Dictionary of Estate)
28. "The People" does NOT include you and me. (Barron vs. Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243)
29. It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE
CORPORATION and arrest code breakers. (SAPP vs. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd.
363, REiff vs. City of Phila. 477 F. 1262, Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E.
2nd. 247)30. Everything in the "United States" is up for sale: bridges, roads, water,
schools, hospitals, prisons, airports, etc, etc... Did anybody take time to
check who bought Klamath Lake?? (Executive Order 12803)
31. "We are human capital” (Executive Order 13037) The world cabal makes
money off of the use of your signatures on mortgages, car loans, credit
cards, your social security number, etc.
32. The U.N. - United Nations - has financed the operations of the United
States government (the corporation of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) for
over 50 years (U.S. Department of Treasury is part of the U.N. see above)
and now owns every man, woman and child in America.
The U.N. also holds all of the land of America in Fee Simple.
Source: home...
The good news is we don't have to fulfill "our" fictitious obligations. You
can discharge a fictitious obligation with another's fictitious obligation.
These documents are not secret. They are a matter of public record.
Simple words such as "person" "citizen" "people" "or" "nation" "crime"
"charge" "right" "statute" "preferred" "prefer" "constitutor" "creditor"
"debtor" "debit" "discharge" "payment" "law" and "United States" doesn't
mean what we think it does because we were never taught the legal
definitions of the above words.
The illusion is much larger than what is cited.

Dr Leonard Coldwell
Board Certified NMD DNM PHD D.HUM LCHC CNHP DIP.PHC
www.drleonardcoldwell.com



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

elouina
Like I mentioned in my thread about this earlier, Obama's DOJ Supreme Court Case- Charge American Under International Treaty To trump 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.


Obama didn't plan anything....page 9, section C, in the court writ below, states that the federal government brought these charges under the treaty, back in 2007
sblog.s3.amazonaws.com...

can we get off of this "blame Obama"



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 



The second amendment confirms the rights of citizens to own guns as a means of giving citizens control over the government.

So if a President signs a treaty making it illegal for the general population to own guns and this is ratified by Congress.

Which wins. The second Amendment or the international treaty?


Such a treaty would never be ratified by Congress, so the question is moot. Of course, you do not choose to believe this, despite decades of claims that such legislation was "just around the corner." But I can see from superluminal's post above that this thread is no longer a discussion of Ted Cruz's publicity seeking or the merits of Ms. Bond's case, but has deteriorated into unfocused anger and fiction mongering.
edit on 31-10-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 



can we get off of this "blame Obama"


Sure.. I'll not directly blame Obama. After all, it isn't Obama doing this exactly, anyway.

The man most directly to blame is Eric Holder, our Attorney General and head of the Justice Department. (Or Just Us...I love that one on an above post... lol.. never heard it before). Anyway.... Holder has shown time and time again, they have absolutely no issues about redefining or even dropping cases entirely, as it suits them.

This may have origins outside the direct line of people currently arguing it before the Supreme Court, and that's fair to point out. However, it's the Obama Justice Department CURRENTLY arguing it and they do have 100% discretion as to whether they pushed it this far or not. Whether they fight with vigor ..or come to realize, enforcement of an international treaty for what LOCAL law can well cover, is absolutely wrong and sets the most dangerous legal precedent I could imagine.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



And fourth and finally, a commitment to living our values by respecting the rule of law, As I said, both the President and Secretary Clinton are outstanding lawyers, and they understand that by imposing constraints on government action, law legitimates and gives credibility to governmental action. As the President emphasized forcefully in his National Archives speech and elsewhere, the American political system was founded on a vision of common humanity, universal rights and rule of law. Fidelity to [these] values” makes us stronger and safer. This also means following universal standards, not double standards. In his Nobel lecture at Oslo, President Obama affirmed that '[a]dhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates those who don’t.
Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Advisor, US Dept. of State

I linked to his full remarks. He is a state department counsel, but I'll bet his attitude is reflective of how the administration views law and international law as a whole. In other words, it seems to me that he's saying "One World; One Law" there.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

DJW001
The case in question seems to be an attempt to clarify whether the Federal government can prosecute a case as a more serious infraction than it would be locally. (Presumably the local court considered it to be simple harassment; the Feds are trying to make it attempted murder and citing a definition from international law to make their case.)

In other words, no, international treaties do not supersede the Constitution, they are contained in the Constitution!


You are correct. People don't seem to be reading the actual case

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



edit on 31-10-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





Such a treaty would never be ratified by Congress, so the question is moot.


OH? Obama's just about to sign the UN treaty on guns.

What everyone forgets is in the USA Congress has to ratify a treaty, but in international LAW if a countries leader signs a treaty it is VALID!

From Duke University: LINK


...U.S. Treaties & Agreements - The Process

Under U.S. law,
treaties are equivalent in status to Federal legislation;


a distinction is made between the terms treaty and agreement;

the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution);

agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as executive agreements; and
regardless of whether an international agreement is called a convention, agreement, protocol, accord, etc., if it is submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, it is considered a treaty under U.S. law.

Note that under international law, both types of agreements are considered binding....


I have been looking into all this crap for several years BTW.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join