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

reply to post by crimvelvet


Think about this. The Duke International Law Tutorial linked to above makes it clear an executive decision WITHOUT Congressional approval has standing in International law. A treaty is considered to BE equivalent in status to Federal legislation

This means the President can, with the blessings of 'Global Governance' become a defacto DICTATOR!

Neat way to get around the will of the people.

Here is how it works in the EU. (Pascal Lamy again)

...The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now...

First, on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice...

Seems they have a different idea of what the Rule of Law is. It certainly has nothing to do with democracy.

reply to post by Indigo5


if a foreign diplomat drove a car without a state-issued drivers license, he could be taken to jail under state law...but...the US has a "treaty" with other countries, where diplomats do not have to have every local and lawful drivers license of each and every country, state, or province.

this is just a small instance of where international treaty trumps U.S. state law on a fairly benign level.

using chemicals as a weapon in an attempt to murder another individual, as the Bond v. united states case, could have national and international implications far beyond a states authority and jurisdiction...with Bond, the sentence was 3 months to 24 months as per the states ruling....if bond, after serving 3 months in jail, had a score to settle and decided to take out not only the "other" woman, but maybe used chemical weapons on the postal inspector, the prosecutor, the judge, maybe even contaminate an entire court building in another jurisdiction, also, if she moved to another US state or foreign country, no one would know what she was capable of, or what she actually did.
if she was prosecuted under the treaty law, there would be a federal database file, that could be used to alert immigration officials in other countries as to her capabilities, and prior prosecutions. if she went nuts again in a different US state, it could be used in a timely way to locate her and possibly save lives.

maybe if Ted Cruz could train his mind to ask the question "WHY SOMETHING IS" , and then research the answer, he might be better off

Hola,

I am for neither side in this debacle. Whatever the issue, whoever wins, the American people will lose...I have no illusions with respect to this. They have been pushing for a one world order for a while now and THIS is exactly what they meant. What suprises me is...

Ted Cruz isn't even an American.
He's a Canadian...from Calgary.
Not even other Canadians pay attention to Calgarians (just look at the NDP)...so what exactly are YOU doing listening to this clown for in the first place?
No matter how well intentioned this guys seems you MUST understand he's just gonna stick it to you the FIRST chance he gets, because this is what it means to be a career politician. He's always gonna tell you what he "thinks" you want to hear and he'll always use it to screw you over.
Left or Right is all a game to give you the illusion of choice...there-is-no-choice.
To see through this lie breaks it's hold over you.

-Amitabha-

jimmyx
maybe if Ted Cruz could train his mind to ask the question "WHY SOMETHING IS" , and then research the answer, he might be better off

One could say the same about Obama ...

reply to post by gladtobehere


The issue of treaties as laws has been discussed in ATS before, no long ago actually, The answer is no, our constitution very clear states that no law supersedes the laws of the constitution.

What ever is going on with the lawyers behind this attempt to use treaties as policies are grasping for air, we can consider them nothing but traitors and I will go as far as having the bunch of them arrested under treason charges, and we know that the penalty is execution.

I guess they are trying to have the Supreme court banned at the same time, because without constitution it will be no Supreme court to uphold it.

That sounds like something that happen a long time ago in another country, yeah, when Germany became Nazi Germany

crimvelvet
reply to post by crimvelvet

A treaty is considered to BE equivalent in status to Federal legislation

This means the President can, with the blessings of 'Global Governance' become a defacto DICTATOR!

Neat way to get around the will of the people.

Except that the Senate would have to approve the treaty.

But, as Reagan said, "Facts are stupid things."

marg6043
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

The issue of treaties as laws has been discussed in ATS before, no long ago actually, The answer is no, our constitution very clear states that no law supersedes the laws of the constitution.

What ever is going on with the lawyers behind this attempt to use treaties as policies are grasping for air, we can consider them nothing but traitors and I will go as far as having the bunch of them arrested under treason charges, and we know that the penalty is execution.

For someone who talks about what the Constitution says, you apparently haven't read all of it.

Article III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Show us how making a legal argument is in any way covered by the above.

It seems like this article describes many people here at ATS:

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

reply to post by crimvelvet

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

It was only a matter of time before this was brought up. The resolution in question would only infringe on your "right" to sell large quantities of arms to criminals, terrorists and regimes that inflict atrocities on their citizens and neighbors. It will never be ratified by Congress because it would bar United States arms manufacturers from supplying arms to Israel.

As for Congress revoking the Second Amendment, can't you see that it, not Social Security, is the "third rail of American politics?" Politicians want you to have the false security that comes with gun ownership so that you will be content and not organize effectively politically. Incidentally, The Second Amendment has nothing to do with protecting citizens from the government. Please read what it actually says. In fact, go and read what the entire constitution says before you decide whether or not something is "unconstitutional."

reply to post by mothershipzeta


I see it as war against the constitution itself, the term of treason this days as per thanks to the patriot act span wider than ever before, how about calling the lawyers terrorist against the constitution.

That out to do it.

Is just an oxymoron actually.

DJW001
reply to post by crimvelvet

 

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

It was only a matter of time before this was brought up. The resolution in question would only infringe on your "right" to sell large quantities of arms to criminals, terrorists and regimes that inflict atrocities on their citizens and neighbors. It will never be ratified by Congress because it would bar United States arms manufacturers from supplying arms to Israel.




"

you are citing the action of the Fast & Furious operation...

are you telling the forum that a secret, immoral and illegal operation of selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels was in fact OK because the clandestine, rogue operation --> was not a large Civilian gun Industry


you tramped into a quagmire there friend

reply to post by St Udio

are you telling the forum that a secret, immoral and illegal operation of selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels was in fact OK because the clandestine, rogue operation --> was not a large Civilian gun Industry

No, that is clearly not at all what I was telling the forum. Please learn to read. (And stop listening to the voices in your head. They tell you lies.)

reply to post by DJW001


Actually it seems that the OP refers more as how the US government could hide behind treaties to expand powers and influence or enforce policies.

This can never happen as it very well conflicts with the powers that the constitution gives to the federal government, that are actually limited.

The supreme court can only take cases that involve constitutional rights and treaties are actually in conflict with constitutional laws any way to begin with.

We all know that this is in references to gun control but actually is more than just that, the federal government is going around the bushes looking to open back doors using treaties

Interesting.

reply to post by mothershipzeta

Except that the Senate would have to approve the treaty.

What is it with the people on ATS, are you incapable of READING? Please go back and READ what the Duke University said about INTERNATIONAL LAW (not US law). If a president SIGNS it is considered a TREATY by the standards of INTERNATIONAL LAW.

As the FDA stated if the USA DOES NOT COMPLY they will be up for international sanctions. Heck The USA sued the EU via the WTO about GMO food and the EU is now paying millions in fines.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


I really like your Avatar

reply to post by gladtobehere


If International law trumps the U.S> constitution, then the House, Congress, Senate, and the Supreme Court best go home, as this country has lost its nations, state sovergnty. Nothing else to say is there

reply to post by crimvelvet

What is it with the people on ATS, are you incapable of READING? Please go back and READ what the Duke University said about INTERNATIONAL LAW (not US law). If a president SIGNS it is considered a TREATY by the standards of INTERNATIONAL LAW.

It doesn't matter whether other nations consider a rejected treaty to be valid. It has no legal force in the United States until the Congress ratifies it. Take the Kyoto Accord, for example. It was signed by Vice President Gore, yet failed in Congress. The United States was not bound to fulfill its various requirements and there were no sanctions by other nations. You are confusing International Law, which is chiefly an unwritten series of precedents going back centuries, with United States Law.

The UN or any other body of government in any nation, anywhere on the planet or the entire universe cannot ever have power of the United States unless they win it in war. It's that simple.

Ooga boooga!
Did I sacre you?

reply to post by crimvelvet

I´ve lived in EU countries for more than a decade, never heard (in the countries where I live at) about some law being pushed on us, even though I am very aware what is happening here politically. Mostly the laws are minimum standards on what the member nations have to keep up with, nothing more. Compared to non-EU nations in Europe the standards are significantly higher on nearly everything, which assures higher quality of services and products.

reply to post by Kali74


" power of the United States unless they win it in war.",,it wasnt war that gave the united states power in the world,,it was what the united states did 1945-1960,,after the war,, that gave the united states its power.
they did not attack and subdue the rest of the world, by military means,,,u know the second nuclear bomb, could have fell on Moscow,,think about it.