Sunday, July 03, 2005
On CAFTA and Constitutionality
Though not an article this seems worth posting, both for information purposes and for references. The passage of CAFTA will take this country yet further from the Constitution!
----- Original Message -----
From: C
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Fast Track to CAFTA Violates Constitution's Two-Thirds Vote Requirement
On Jul 2, 2005, at 9:55 PM, Bob Pletka wrote:
Heads up on a false premise that any branch of government has the authority to pass any agreement or treaty that alters the fundamental structure and/or character of the United States government. NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS. Accepting such nonsense as a fact has been the undoing of this nation for decades. CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE ANY OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO A FOREIGN OR INTERNATIONAL POWER. Your overpaid and constitutionally illiterate public servants (including judges turned self-made masters) believe they have the authority to make any "progressive" changes that sound good to them -- especially when those changes attack God-given unalienable rights. If you accept that premise then you are encouraged to rethink the matter. SENATE PASSAGE OF CAFTA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!! IT TRANFERS AUTHORITY TO A FOREIGN ENTITY!!!!!!!
A careful study of past Supreme Court decisions dating back into the 1800s and as late as 1957* very succinctly state that the power to make changes in the fundamental structure and character of the United States government resides strictly in the PEOPLE through the Article V Amendment Provision. No amendment has ever been ratified according to Article V for giving any/or all branches of government any power to transfer their constitutionally delegated powers to the WTO, World Bank, the U.N. Security Council, UNESCO, NAFTA, CAFTA, "SHAFFTA", OAS, or so-called "obligations" such as the ICCPR, the "International Covenant on Human Rights", or any other international "legal" instruments; yet, all of them exist and they are being voluntarily implemented by a renegade U.S. government and paid for by plundered citizens. It has been so for decades.
(*Available from me upon request)
Unfortunately, a similar situation exists in the States. Here is just one example: Do you have a God-given unalienable to defend your life, liberty and property and to possess the means for doing so? Who has the right to pass a so-called "law" (statute) nullifying such an unalienable (God-given non-infringeable, non-transferable, sacrosanct) right? Many "gun rights" and "second amendment rights" organizations seem to overlook the power of words. Perhaps they reason that "unalienable rights" are strange words in today's modern lexicon. How about using words like the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND MEANS OF SELF DEFENSE? The Second Amendment authorizes no gun rights -- it GUARANTEES them against infringement by would be tyrants on the federal level.
The Oregon State Bill of Rights very explicitly provides that: The right of the people to keep and bear arms for the protection of themselves and the State SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (Article 27)
Does it take a lawyer to understand those words? Even most of them seem to ignore or to be mute on the subject. Law schools are, by and large, turning out paper shufflers. No wonder we are in serious trouble.
It is not my intent to be critical or to alienate the author of the following article about "fast track" re CAFTA. I only wanted to open up a different approach to the subject. Thanks for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Bob Pletka
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: Bob Pletka ; John F. McManus
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 6:05 PM
Subject: Fast Track to CAFTA Violates Constitution's Two-Thirds Vote Requirement
Fast Track to CAFTA Violates Constitution's Two-Thirds Vote Requirement
We ought to be outraged by CAFTA winning in the U.S. Senate for many reasons:
1. It is not Free Trade as claimed, but managed trade.
2. It establishes a new layer of government, an international one over our commerce, environment, labor laws, etc.
3. This layer of government consists of unelected officials from nations other than our own, thus no real accountability, and a cadre of individuals, many of whom are antagonistic to our way of life.
4. This is in truth, a regional arrangement under the United Nations, subject to loyalty to the anti-American, anti-Capitalist, pro-Communist, pro-terrorist, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, anti-family, pro-gay U.N. Charter and Security Council. It will provide an excellent back door to impose, or to provide additional pressure to impose international treaties our people and our Congress objects to.
5. All of this is a very real threat to our sovereignty, and violates the Constitutional provision that our Congress, not some international body regulate our foreign and domestic commerce.
6. CAFTA, like NAFTA and the coming FTAA, has provisions that provide for a borderless society (you think the immigration invasion and the terrorist threat are a worry now!).
7. CAFTA, like NAFTA and the coming FTAA, has provisions and stated goals to turn it into the next European Union, but via a fast track. One of these provisions are regional/transitional governments upon our borders.
8. Finally, and here's a biggy not a word is being spoken about. Under the Constitution, a treaty is required to be passed by a two-thirds vote in the US Senate. This passed yesterday by a 55-45 vote in the U.S. Senate and awaits a House vote. But this is not two-thirds is it? Not anywhere near the 75 required votes. How did they get away with this. Your President, your 'conservative' Republican Party, a pack of phony bolognies who pretend to be the party loyal to the Founding Generation, passed something into law called Fast Track that made it so that if you call it a "Trade Arrangement" rather than a treaty, it can get through the Senate by a mere majority vote! And by the way, after minimal consideration (part of the 'fast track' idea) And so we have something that mounts an enormous threat to our sovereignty as a free and independent nation, rushed through, and rushed through in a manner contrary to our Constitution's requirement for a super-majority vote. Something that will rarely happen on something so controversial.
What do we need to do? Spread the word on this issue. Insist that your Senators and Congressmen introduce legislation to repeal 'fast track.' Tell them you are disappointed if they voted for this, and tell them, and encourage your house members to defeat the House version of CAFTA.
One more thing, stop the blind partisanship to this party of phony conservatives - it's time to expose stupidity wherever it reigns.
For some of the economic ramifications see also Liberty Letter's, Diane Alden's Golden CAFTA's Brass Spitoon and CAFTA SHAFTA.
posted by Steve Farrell @ 10:46 AM
http://libertyletters.blogspot.com/2005/07/fast-track-to-cafta-violates.html
--
"We Republicans [must] hold the just balance and set ourselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." -Theodore Roosevelt
----- Original Message -----
From: C
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Fast Track to CAFTA Violates Constitution's Two-Thirds Vote Requirement
On Jul 2, 2005, at 9:55 PM, Bob Pletka wrote:
Heads up on a false premise that any branch of government has the authority to pass any agreement or treaty that alters the fundamental structure and/or character of the United States government. NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS. Accepting such nonsense as a fact has been the undoing of this nation for decades. CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE ANY OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO A FOREIGN OR INTERNATIONAL POWER. Your overpaid and constitutionally illiterate public servants (including judges turned self-made masters) believe they have the authority to make any "progressive" changes that sound good to them -- especially when those changes attack God-given unalienable rights. If you accept that premise then you are encouraged to rethink the matter. SENATE PASSAGE OF CAFTA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!! IT TRANFERS AUTHORITY TO A FOREIGN ENTITY!!!!!!!
A careful study of past Supreme Court decisions dating back into the 1800s and as late as 1957* very succinctly state that the power to make changes in the fundamental structure and character of the United States government resides strictly in the PEOPLE through the Article V Amendment Provision. No amendment has ever been ratified according to Article V for giving any/or all branches of government any power to transfer their constitutionally delegated powers to the WTO, World Bank, the U.N. Security Council, UNESCO, NAFTA, CAFTA, "SHAFFTA", OAS, or so-called "obligations" such as the ICCPR, the "International Covenant on Human Rights", or any other international "legal" instruments; yet, all of them exist and they are being voluntarily implemented by a renegade U.S. government and paid for by plundered citizens. It has been so for decades.
(*Available from me upon request)
Unfortunately, a similar situation exists in the States. Here is just one example: Do you have a God-given unalienable to defend your life, liberty and property and to possess the means for doing so? Who has the right to pass a so-called "law" (statute) nullifying such an unalienable (God-given non-infringeable, non-transferable, sacrosanct) right? Many "gun rights" and "second amendment rights" organizations seem to overlook the power of words. Perhaps they reason that "unalienable rights" are strange words in today's modern lexicon. How about using words like the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND MEANS OF SELF DEFENSE? The Second Amendment authorizes no gun rights -- it GUARANTEES them against infringement by would be tyrants on the federal level.
The Oregon State Bill of Rights very explicitly provides that: The right of the people to keep and bear arms for the protection of themselves and the State SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (Article 27)
Does it take a lawyer to understand those words? Even most of them seem to ignore or to be mute on the subject. Law schools are, by and large, turning out paper shufflers. No wonder we are in serious trouble.
It is not my intent to be critical or to alienate the author of the following article about "fast track" re CAFTA. I only wanted to open up a different approach to the subject. Thanks for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Bob Pletka
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: Bob Pletka ; John F. McManus
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 6:05 PM
Subject: Fast Track to CAFTA Violates Constitution's Two-Thirds Vote Requirement
Fast Track to CAFTA Violates Constitution's Two-Thirds Vote Requirement
We ought to be outraged by CAFTA winning in the U.S. Senate for many reasons:
1. It is not Free Trade as claimed, but managed trade.
2. It establishes a new layer of government, an international one over our commerce, environment, labor laws, etc.
3. This layer of government consists of unelected officials from nations other than our own, thus no real accountability, and a cadre of individuals, many of whom are antagonistic to our way of life.
4. This is in truth, a regional arrangement under the United Nations, subject to loyalty to the anti-American, anti-Capitalist, pro-Communist, pro-terrorist, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, anti-family, pro-gay U.N. Charter and Security Council. It will provide an excellent back door to impose, or to provide additional pressure to impose international treaties our people and our Congress objects to.
5. All of this is a very real threat to our sovereignty, and violates the Constitutional provision that our Congress, not some international body regulate our foreign and domestic commerce.
6. CAFTA, like NAFTA and the coming FTAA, has provisions that provide for a borderless society (you think the immigration invasion and the terrorist threat are a worry now!).
7. CAFTA, like NAFTA and the coming FTAA, has provisions and stated goals to turn it into the next European Union, but via a fast track. One of these provisions are regional/transitional governments upon our borders.
8. Finally, and here's a biggy not a word is being spoken about. Under the Constitution, a treaty is required to be passed by a two-thirds vote in the US Senate. This passed yesterday by a 55-45 vote in the U.S. Senate and awaits a House vote. But this is not two-thirds is it? Not anywhere near the 75 required votes. How did they get away with this. Your President, your 'conservative' Republican Party, a pack of phony bolognies who pretend to be the party loyal to the Founding Generation, passed something into law called Fast Track that made it so that if you call it a "Trade Arrangement" rather than a treaty, it can get through the Senate by a mere majority vote! And by the way, after minimal consideration (part of the 'fast track' idea) And so we have something that mounts an enormous threat to our sovereignty as a free and independent nation, rushed through, and rushed through in a manner contrary to our Constitution's requirement for a super-majority vote. Something that will rarely happen on something so controversial.
What do we need to do? Spread the word on this issue. Insist that your Senators and Congressmen introduce legislation to repeal 'fast track.' Tell them you are disappointed if they voted for this, and tell them, and encourage your house members to defeat the House version of CAFTA.
One more thing, stop the blind partisanship to this party of phony conservatives - it's time to expose stupidity wherever it reigns.
For some of the economic ramifications see also Liberty Letter's, Diane Alden's Golden CAFTA's Brass Spitoon and CAFTA SHAFTA.
posted by Steve Farrell @ 10:46 AM
http://libertyletters.blogspot.com/2005/07/fast-track-to-cafta-violates.html
--
"We Republicans [must] hold the just balance and set ourselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." -Theodore Roosevelt
