This sends a SHIVER down my spine!

This is a discussion on This sends a SHIVER down my spine! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623 North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court by Jerome R. Corsi Posted Jun 19, 2006 The Bush Administration is pushing to create a ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: This sends a SHIVER down my spine!

  1. #1
    Member Array DakotaXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    105

    This sends a SHIVER down my spine!

    http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623

    North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

    by Jerome R. Corsi
    Posted Jun 19, 2006

    The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

    Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.

    Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.

    On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California’s MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.

    While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.

    Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.” Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.

    Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.

    The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:

    The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.

    Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” Pastor understands that a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.

    When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor’s solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths.”

    Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor’s testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: “Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules.” Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.

    The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:

    We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.

    We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.

    Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
    "Old Marines never die, we just smell like it." USMC 71'-83'


    Stay Safe

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Bud White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Away - Health Problems
    Posts
    17,353
    Yeah that does the same for me

  4. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    No treaty may supersede the Constitution, nor may any treaty alter the Constitutional rights of Americans.

    Matt

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,741
    Now, Matt, if we could only get some of those Congresspersons to read that part, we'd be better off.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  6. #5
    Lead Moderator
    Array rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    15,655
    Scary stuff. Gotta wonder the agenda of US leaders.
    "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson


    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  7. #6
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperKnight
    Now, Matt, if we could only get some of those Congresspersons to read that part, we'd be better off.
    Fortunately, the Supreme Court gets it. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Court held that:

    There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
    Unless the Court is prepared to abandon Stare Decisis, there is no way such a treaty could abrogate the Bill of Rights.

    Matt

  8. #7
    Member Array kansas_shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kansas City, KS
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by rocky
    Scary stuff. Gotta wonder the agenda of US leaders.
    I agree.
    One shot. One kill.

    Primary Carry - Taurus PT-111 Mil Pro 9mm DAO with 12 + 1 in the pipe. Holstered in a Brigade OWB M2.

    Secondary Weapon - Taurus PT1911 5" 45acp SA with 8+1. Holstered in a Kydex paddle.

  9. #8
    Ex Member Array one eyed fatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    500
    What was daddy Bush's theme, something about a new world order. G.W's theme seems to be let's sell out the American people. No I'm not a democrat and I swear I never stayed at a Holiday Inn.

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array Packman73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ground zero of the invasion
    Posts
    671
    This is starting to sound like the begining of the end of the Bible...

  11. #10
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,626
    Just another step towards One World Government.

    just a bit at a time...

    Scary stuff. Gotta wonder the agenda of US leaders.
    Its pretty evident to those that pay attention...

  12. #11
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,626
    No treaty may supersede the Constitution, nor may any treaty alter the Constitutional rights of Americans.

    Matt
    Unless our elected officials decide to make it so...

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,741
    Quote Originally Posted by MattLarson
    Fortunately, the Supreme Court gets it. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Court held that:***

    Unless the Court is prepared to abandon Stare Decisis, there is no way such a treaty could abrogate the Bill of Rights.

    Matt
    Unfortunately that was 50 years ago. Congress has repeatedly ignored the letter of the law as well as the spirit of the law. Hopefully a conservative Court will help.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Packman73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ground zero of the invasion
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperKnight
    Unfortunately that was 50 years ago. Congress has repeatedly ignored the letter of the law as well as the spirit of the law. Hopefully a conservative Court will help.
    Actually libertarians seem to be the only ones, IMO, that care about the Contitution and the Bill of Rights and things like border security anymore. The dems are too left and the consevatives have lost their way, IMO.

  15. #14
    Ex Member Array one eyed fatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    500
    If we don't all wise up and start voting liberitarian we are sure to see a president of the world. To many republicans are deaf, dumb and blind. Let's change that.

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,281

    I have a Better Idea

    Let's put NAFTA up to a national vote to keep or scrap and see just how long it manages to survive.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Right Wing Group Sends Letters Threatening To Remove Governors
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: April 8th, 2010, 07:03 PM
  2. At least one MP has a spine
    By RebelKangaroo in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 12th, 2008, 05:14 PM
  3. Armed resident sends burglars fleeing
    By muskiehunter in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 19th, 2008, 07:25 AM
  4. Mall shootout sends shoppers ducking
    By BenGoodLuck in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 27th, 2007, 08:10 AM

Search tags for this page

kydex health hazards

,

kydex north american arms

Click on a term to search for related topics.