How can this be happening in the USA

[Double Naught Spy]

I note that in recent years the liberals on SCOTUS have repeatedly cited foreign law in their decisions, the most notoroius being Lawrence vs. Texas, the 2003 decision striking down sodomy laws, the majority opinion cited Acts of the British Parliament. So much for the Declaration of Independence. This prompted a number of Members of Congress to start what they called the "Second Declaration of Independence", which declared that inappropriate reliance on foreign law undermined US sovreinity, the separation of powers, etc.

Oh I get it. Because we have the D of I, we can't look to information from outside of our own borders for guidance. Instead, everything must be done completely separately. Never mind if what was learned from outside the border is actually helpful or not.

I will say this, the web sites are interesting, but then so too is the information from the Flat Earth Society and the groups that claim we never landed a man on the moon. Lots of the extremist groups make some pretty nifty arguments, but they seem to blend a lot of fantasy with paranoia and unique perspectives on more commonly perceived reality.

Wow; I guess apparently I need to start documenting my research!

Yes and no. If it it for you, no. If you want to try to get other people to act and they have no idea who you are, then you have no credibility. Paul Revere was well known and was an authority figure before he made his ride.

Oh, hey, don't forget other nonsense such as http://www.cpwire.com/artman/publish/article_1307.asp

MEDIA ADVISORY--(COLLEGIATE PRESSWIRE)--April 18, 2006--The biggest scam in the history of mankind has been in operation in America for almost 100 years. Trillions and trillions of dollars have been unlawfully taken from the American people. Conclusive proof of the scam is set forth in a book by Hugh W. Johnston titled, ”Second Declaration of Independence”. It will be dated July 4, 2006 and released the next day.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Could you please edit your statements into a halfway legible paragraph? Right now your looking like a troll. Which may or may not be the case.

ETA: One more thing to add to the above discussion. Why does the article say the Canadian border near Duluth, Minnesota? Duluth is not anywhere near the Canadian border. In fact Duluth is that little tip of Lake Superior. Had they said Roseau, International Falls, Baudette or another such border town I'd be more inclided to believe it.

Just asking,

Shotgun

 

[badbob]

ETA: One more thing to add to the above discussion. Why does the article say the Canadian border near Duluth, Minnesota? Duluth is not anywhere near the Canadian border. In fact Duluth is that little tip of Lake Superior. Had they said Roseau, International Falls, Baudette or another such border town I'd be more inclided to believe it.

The article says north of Duluth, Minn. A map in the article shows the proposed route.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn

badbob

 

[Gary Conner]

Oh, so this is about the NAFTA Superhighway, not the rape of the American Constitution by funny talkin' Northerners and Brown Skinned Southerners.

OK, then. Topic good to go. The Superhighway absolutely deserves critical attention, eh Gringos?
Rich

Rich, why did you have to throw in a race card?

Nobody with the exception of yourself, had mentioned a single thing about race.

What 1AKPatriot was bringing to your attention, is the fact that we either have a Representative Republic governed by our Constitution, or we do not.

To answer one of your questions, about if entering into a pact with a foreign nation constitutes a treaty, the answer is "yes, an illegal one" (since the Senate was bypassed completely)

If we allow presidents to "make" treaties agreeing to cross border policing with foreign nations, it sets what the lawyer types like to call a "prescedent" and the next thing you know, you could see a treaty made with the U.N. without any Senate input either, allowing for the Small Weapons regulation by the U.N., or similar things.

We either have a Constitution we intend to keep, or we can allow globalist politicians to cede our sovereignty. Just because they point out within their own documents that this agreement borders on ceding soveriegnty (thus the claimthey will "respect" sovereignty) doesn't mean it has, or will occur.

When you agree to a "trilateral network of law enforcment" between the three countries, the sovereignty is ALREADY compromised.

But to try to throw in racism just because the guy doesn't want the Texas border checkpoints moved to Kansas City, Mo. via the "Trans Texas Corridor" agreement, (which is the first step in the North American Partnership) isn't real fair. I don't see a thing he wrote, which would indicate he is basing his concern due to racism. Do you?

If so, please point it out because I missed it.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Rich, why did you have to throw in a race card?

OK, I take it back; though it wasn't a statement I ascribed to anyone here. Generally speaking, however, the wellspring of xenophobia has always been ethnic and racial bias, agreed?

To answer one of your questions, about if entering into a pact with a foreign nation constitutes a treaty, the answer is "yes, an illegal one" (since the Senate was bypassed completely)

Absurd Leap of Faith. Show me the "Treaty" that was signed. You are basically arguing that no sitting President may meet with any foreign leader and agree to cooperate on anything without Senate approval. This is patently absurd and historically inaccurate.
Rich

 

[Gary Conner]

Xenophobia?

Okay, now he is mentally ill?

That would mean I am also mentally ill, as I have the exact same concerns as he does, and I don't agree at all with that diagnosis. What I will say, is just because someone has an opposing view it is not fair to throw in racism when there is ZERO evidence thereof, or imply they suffer from a mental illness, just because you might disagree with their opinion.

I know we would both agree on that.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Xenophobia is not a state of mental illness. It is a condition of irrational distrust of outsiders.

I did not state that you or anyone else is xenophobic. I simply pointed out that xenophobics have come to the same conclusions as you. Them from a misunderstanding of outsiders; you from a misunderstanding of the nature of "cooperation" vs "treaties".
Rich

 

[Gary Conner]

you from a misunderstanding of the nature of "cooperation" vs "treaties".

Rich, when the Ambassadors and the Cabinet Members of an Administration sign documents "agreeing" to matters dealing with trade, peace, or commerce with one or more states, it is a treaty.

I have no misunderstanding of the definition of a treaty.

As to the Xenophobia statement, it very much implies someone is mentally impaired, as the definition is an "irrational" fear of things foreign. I have no irrational fear of anything foreign. I have a rational fear of a president who "makes" a treaty with a foreign nation allowing for "cross border" policing.

However, to get back on topic, 1AKPatriot's bringing the "North American Partnership Agreement" up alongside the NORTHCOM and John Warner Defense Authorization Act demonstrates he has indeed done his research, but simply had not outlined it complete with chapter and verse.

Let's put it like this. If twenty years ago, someone were to tell you that a president would "make" treaties without any vote in the Senate, sign a law that said the military can arrest you and hold you without benefit of counsel for an indefinite period for "engaging in conspiracy theories which embolden" (an unnamed) enemy, and declare marital law if he or she so determines it is necessary due to "civil unrest" or the "failure or refusal" of a Governor to quell what the president deems to be "domestic violence" or "disobedience" you would have probably said "where is the tin foil" or some other statement.

I know I would have. However, now the government has web sites claiming a "North American Partnership Agreement" was "inauguarated" between Mexico and Canada, and that a citizen can now be arrested by the military, and martial law can now be declared, without ANY input from a Governor of a State.

Being concerned about that, is not Xenophobia. It is a totally rational, and natural reaction. It is NOT "irrational" to voice concern. Especially, when voicing concern, could be interpreted as "engaging in conspiracy theories" which could (according to the Military Commissions Act) get you put in prison, and possibly the death penalty.

If I told you that twenty years ago, you would have thought I was nuts. Today, we discuss "well, yes, according to the Act, a civilian can be declared an "enemy combatant" by the military commission, but habeus corpus is not really, really totally suspended" (or similar statements meaning basically the same thing)

 

[Al Norris]

I'm with Rich on this one.

Statements of cooperation; Letters of Intent and such, do not a Treaty make. The US has been doing this for 200+ years. In that time, none of this type of activity has ever approached the level of treaty.

Someone needs to adjust their tinfoil...

 

[Gary Conner]

Quote from Antipitas:

I'm with Rich on this one.

Statements of cooperation; Letters of Intent and such, do not a Treaty make. The US has been doing this for 200+ years. In that time, none of this type of activity has ever approached the level of treaty.

Someone needs to adjust their tinfoil...

Well, I am with Websters on it. (And someone needs to bone up on the definition of the word "Treaty", along with Article II, Section II of the Constitution)

 

[Al Norris]

Unfortunately for you, Websters is not a legal dictionary. As such, its definitions do not rise to the level of law.

 

[Gary Conner]

Unfortunately for you, Websters is not a legal dictionary. As such, its definitions do not rise to the level of law.
[/QUOTE

Methinks the dictionary you have been reading doesn't rise to the level of rational, and therefore you may be suffering from Websterphobia.

Antipitas, take a look at the word "make" in any dictionary you wish, and take a look at the word definition, in any dictionary you wish, and then take a look at the definition of agreement in any dictionary you wish.

Then get back to me and tell me how "making an agreement" between three countries, and putting it in writing does not constitute "making a treaty" between three countries.

People who believe only lawyers can read, or have enough sense to converse, are how we got in this sorry situation of a growing police state.

 

[buzz_knox]

Then get back to me and tell me how "making an agreement" between three countries, and putting it in writing does not constitute "making a treaty" between three countries.

How about because the international community doesn't consider them as treaties, but only as voluntary agreements whose breach does not bring the same legal/political consequences as breach of a treaty? Further, many (most?) of these agreements do not go through the same ratification process as that required of treaties so they cannot, by definition, be treaties.

People who believe only lawyers can read, or have enough sense to converse, are how we got in this sorry situation of a growing police state.

We got into this mess by people setting themselves up as authorities on particular subjects and ignoring any inconvenient facts that go in the way of said self-declared expertise. Non-lawyers are just as susceptible to it as lawyers.

 

[Al Norris]

Gary, so if I follow your logic, then when the Attorney General of a particular state allowed that the drivers licenses of another state (through a reciprocal compact with another states AG) were valid in his state, then he entered into a unlawful treaty, because he bypassed his Governor and legislature?

Gary, it was only years later (in some cases, many years) that individual state legislatures codified the already agreed compacts into state law. In your scenario, then every driver that crossed state lines was criminally liable and all the police that recognized their licenses as being valid, were coconspirators. That in its purest sense, is what you are telling us.

So much for reciprocal concealed carry agreements...

 

[Gary Conner]

Quote from Antipitas:

Gary, so if I follow your logic, then when the Attorney General of a particular state allowed that the drivers licenses of another state (through a reciprocal compact with another states AG) were valid in his state, then he entered into a unlawful treaty, because he bypassed his Governor and legislature?

Gary, it was only years later (in some cases, many years) that individual state legislatures codified the already agreed compacts into state law. In your scenario, then every driver that crossed state lines was criminally liable and all the police that recognized their licenses as being valid, were coconspirators. That in its purest sense, is what you are telling us.

So much for reciprocal concealed carry agreements...
__________________

No Antipitas, what you have done is to take an obvious definition and deliberately misrepresent it to mean a "State" within the United States, when the phrase "agreement between two or more states" refers obviously, to countries entering into a treaty by agreement between two or more states.

If you will read Article II, Section II in it's entire textual form, you will see that the president of the United States must seek advice and consent, of the Senate by a majority of the Senators present in order to "make" a treaty.

Bush did not do so, yet instructed his Ambassadors to Mexico and Candad to sign certain Memorandum of Understandings, and other documents were executed by the respective heads of the Dept. of Commerce and Transportation dealing with border issues, which according to the Constitution, must be voted on by the Congress, and any treaty "made" must have a majority approval in the Senate.

I don't know why you want to divert to a concealed carry law between two States within the United States, but somehow you think it has some type of bearing on a President of the United States illegally causing his administration to enter into a treaty with Mexico and Canada.

Regardless of your analogy regarding concealed carry laws, the Constitution also mandates no State shall enter into an agreement or accord with a foreign entity.

The Trans Texas Corridor, is exactly that. The company running it is foreign owned, and no Senate approval was given in order for TexDot to enter into an accord with the company which will manage and decide, whose property (up to one million acres in Texas) shall be affected by imminent domain.

This company will collect a toll, which is also ruled out by the State constitution, since it is a monopoly.

Any high school student can read the Constitution and see that if the United States enters into an agreement with a foreign concern which affects immigration, it is not allowed. You don't need a legal dictionary to see what is happening, any open mind will do.

States entering into accords with other States (within the U.S.) to respect each others laws is ALLOWED under the U.S. Constitution. It is a red herring argument.

 

[Marko Kloos]

I don't see any beef here.

For the umpteenth time, this is not the place to discuss half-baked conspiracy theories. I mourn for the five minutes I lost reading through this thread.