The ultimate action of a lawless President would be the abandonment of America's sovereignty.
This is an apt description of Barack Obama.
1. Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”
a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards.
b. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.
c. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”
d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?
e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.
2. "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
b. ....to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris,... a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution.
c. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
d. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....
e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html
This is an apt description of Barack Obama.
1. Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”
a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards.
b. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.
c. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”
d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?
e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.
2. "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
b. ....to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris,... a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution.
c. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
d. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....
e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html
Last edited:
