global governance --- over our dead bodies screw the UN and those politicians in DC who would sacrifice our soverignty
On Nov 2, 10:58 am, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16423 > > *The Constitution, Globalists and Progressives* > > *How to save America* > > *By* *Henry Lamb* Sunday, November 1, 2009 > > The United States is on the brink of signing a new climate change treaty > that many people believe will be the mechanism that ushers in global > governance. Global governance has been under construction for many years. > Every new treaty in which the United States participates requires the > surrender of a little more sovereignty. International treaties have > influenced domestic policy throughout the 20th century, forcing the federal > government <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16423> > > to impose restrictions on individual freedom which are not authorized > in the enumerated powers set forth in the U.S. Constitution. > > For example, nothing in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution > empowers the federal government to restrict the use of private property. > The Endangered Species Act, enacted to bring the United States into > compliance with several international treaties, gives the federal government > the power to dictate what a private land owner may and may not do on his own > land. This is only one of the more obvious examples of how a treaty is used > to extend the power of the federal government beyond its Constitutional > limitations. > > Stated plainly, treaties are being used to expand the power of the federal > government beyond the limitations set forth by the Constitution. > > When the Constitution was written, Senators were chosen by the legislature > of each state. The power of the states was substantially diminished by the > passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which allowed Senators to be elected > by popular vote, rather than by the legislature. This loss of the state > legislatures power to influence the central government is especially > pertinent to the ratification of treaties. The Constitution requires > two-thirds of the Senators present to vote in the affirmative to ratify a > treaty. > > Changes to the U.S. Constitution require ratification by three-fourths of > the states. The Constitution, along with all treaties made, or which shall > be madeshall be the supreme law of the land (Article VI). It makes no sense > at all to ratify a Constitution that explicitly limits the power of > government, and then ratify treaties that require the government to exercise > power beyond those authorized by the Constitution. > > Patrick Henry cited the possibility that this situation could arise as a > reason why he could not support the ratification of the Constitution. He > said: Sure I am, if treaties are made infringing our liberties, it will be > too late to say that our constitutional rights are violated. (A more > detailed discussion of this situation is available at: > wildergarten.com<http://www.wildergarten.com/wp_pages/articles/patrick_henry.html> > ) > > It may not be too late to correct this situation. Article 2, Section 2 of > the Constitution says: > > He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of > the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present > concur. > > Consider this simple amendment: > > He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of > the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present > [three-fourths of the state legislatures] concur. > > If treaties are co-equal with the Constitution as the supreme law of the > land, is it not reasonable that treaties be subjected to the same > ratification standard required by the Constitution? If treaties are being > used to empower government to act beyond its Constitutional limitations, the > states have every right to demand their approval just as their approval was > required to empower the Constitution. > > Globalists and progressives will scream bloody murder, of course, claiming > that it would be impossible to get three-fourths of the states to agree on > anything. There are 27 Constitutional Amendments that refute this argument, > the most recent of which came in 1992. One more Amendment is not only > possible, it is essential if we are to save this great nation from the hands > of international politicians and return it safely into the hands of the > people. > > Globalists and progressives will argue that this Amendment would slow, or > stop the process of globalization. Others will argue that the process > should have been slowed or stopped years ago. > > Globalists and progressives will argue that this Amendment is a step > backward for civilization. Others will argue that civilization needs to > return to the values and virtues of Americas founders. > > *The United States is the greatest nation on earth because its citizens are > free* > > Weary and worn Constitutionalists will argue that its too much work to get > another Amendment ratified, especially in the face of what will surely be an > all-out war by the well-financed progressives. But then, others will recall > the difficulties at Valley Forge, and Bunker Hill and Iwo Jima; getting an > Amendment ratified is childs play, compared to the work done by those who > have gone before us. > > The United States is the greatest nation on earth because its citizens are > free. They earned their freedom and created a government empowered by their > consent, expressly for the purpose of defending that freedom. But power > craves more power, and government power is no exception. Over time, > treaties have become an easy way to expand government power beyond the reach > of the people whose freedom the government is supposed to defend. > > The Amendment proposed above will take some of the wind out of the sails of > the globalists and progressives, and it will return to the states some of > the power taken from them by the 17th Amendment. Most importantly, it will > give the people an opportunity to express their wishes about treaty matters > to their elected state representatives, who are much closer to the people > than are the Senate elite. > > (1) *Reader > Feedback*<http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/how-to-save-am...>| > Subscribe<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/eesystem/index.php/site/CFP-subs...> > > *Henry Lamb* Most recent > columns<http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/16423/Lamb/> > > *Henry is the executive vice president of the **Environmental Conservation > Organization* <http://www.freedom.org/>* (ECO), and chairman of **Sovereignty > International* <http://www.sovereignty.net/>*.* > > *Henry Lamb can be reached at: > **[email protected]*<[email protected][email protected]> > > *Older articles by Henry > Lamb*<http://www.canadafreepress.com/writers/henry-lamb.htm> > > Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for > educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit > or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your > own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission > from the copyright owner. > > Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. > Content is Copyright 2009 the individual authors. > > Site Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy > Statement<http://canadafreepress.com/privacy.htm> > > mag-glass_10x10.gif > < 1KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
