The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Whats the legality, of signing onto a treaty, which 'violates' the Constitution? Talking, of course, about this U.N. treaty, on guns.

Simply signing a proposed treaty has no actual effect, because it must then be ratified by the Senate before it can become international law. Therefore, the treaty itself cannot be considered to violate constitutional law until such time as it is ratified. The question as to whether the US authorities who have conspired to sign and promote a treaty that clearly violates the provisions of the Constitution have done something illegal and/or improper is quite another thing. First of all, those signers should know that they are willfully advocating something that seeks to overturn the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold and defend. Violation of that oath is nothing less than an act of treason.

The idea that some people have of a treaty having the power to overturn, or trump the Constitution appears to have its origin in a statement made in 1952 when John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and who would soon be appointed Secretary of State under Eisenhower, made the following statement: "Congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights."

That statement by Dulles was and is totally absurd. Those who support his statement often point to the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI), which is so named because it places federal laws and treaties above stateconstitutions, laws, and treaties. Article VI, however, establishes the supremacy of U.S. laws and treaties made within the bounds of the Constitution. Article VI was considered necessary, by the Founders, because contrary to their agreement under the Articles of Confederation, certain states had violated their trust and entered into treaties with foreign powers. So the intent and purpose of the Supremacy Clause is not at all ambiguous, and should be clearly understood.

We should pay heed to the words spoken by Edmund Burke, who said, "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Those of us who work to preserve the sovereignty of the United States must work to expose the Dulles delusion — the ridiculous idea that treaties have intrinsic powers greater than the Constitution. We can do little to stop the President from signing UN accords and treaties at Copenhagen and other places, but we can render his antics ineffective by ensuring a better informed public.

And, Constitutionally, can the Congress enact laws which impinge on rights granted to the People by the Constitution?
Does Congress, uniquely have the 'authority', (under the Constitution) to restrict rights, even though state and municipal governments don't?
Could, (under the Constitution) the Congress enact laws restricting gun rights, or free speech, for that matter, and have them upheld by SCOTUS?
If NOT, how can they ratify a treaty which restricts these same rights?
Jim

One portion of Dulles' statement was correct, which is that, "Congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution." The Congress, therefore, cannot pass Acts, Treaties, or Laws that violate provisions of the Constitution. Congress can, however, propose an Amendment to the Constitution that would allow for what they want to do. That only amounts to a proposed change, of course, and to become an actual Amendment would require ratification by two thirds if the states. The Founders included that provision to ensure that the states , and their people, held the ultimate decision in such matters - not the federal government. It is quite clear, historically, that the Constitution never would have been ratified by the states without the Bill of Rights (first ten Amendments) having been included, as these Amendments clearly stated the rights and powers of the states and their people, while limiting the power and scope of the federal government. That is why any proposed law or treaty which in any way violates the provisions included in the Bill of Rights is especially reprehensible.

That said, we must take note that at least three of the later Amendments to the Constitution were either improperly ratified, or never actually ratified at all. I talked about those occurrences in earlier posts, and I see nothing that would prevent those currently seated in the Corporation US Congress, or the administration, from pulling off another similar scam on an unwitting public which so far has been unsuccessful at overturning those unlawful Amendments. There have been challenges to those Amendments, but those challenges have been thwarted by a "justice" system which, as in the Barry eligibility cases, dismisses any such challenge as either being irrelevant or not having standing to proceed. On appeal of such decisions, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the case arguments. As to the Corporation US SCOTUS, I would say that we can safely assume that they will uphold anything that the Ruling Class wants to use to compel our compliance or punishment. We cannot look to the SCOTUS to overrule unconstitutional laws, treaties, or occurrences that violate provisions of the Constitution. No one seated on the current SCOTUS was appointed by a constitutionally elected original jurisdiction President, so in actuality the current SCOTUS has no lawfully granted powers to hear or decide any case brought before them. As long as this is allowed to continue, our constitutional rights and freedoms will be hacked at and disappear one by one until they have fully vanished. That is why it is so important that we ensure our original jurisdiction government is properly and fully restored before the Ruling Class can achieve their final objective.

Eventually, it will very likely come down to a Constitutional showdown between those who think our Constitution has outlived its usefulness, and those who believe that upholding our Constitution as intended by the Founders is imperative for our nation to survive and prosper.

[dutchdivco]

Thanks, Rick

For your clarification, and I DID note, in my post, that our Constitutional rights have ALREADY been 'eroded' over time. Just wanted your take on this particular issue.
By the way, I DID 'get' what you said, earlier.(Just took awhile to 'soak' in); the 'penalty' for NOT getting health insurance (under O'bemmercare0 is NOT the 'TAX'; the TAX is the premium your paying, for the policy. Requiring us to get the policy, IS the tax. I get it, now.
So, then, for those of 'low income', they will get 'help' fromthe Fed. Gov't, in the form of 'vouchers' or tax credits, in order to be able to afford a policy.
So, they are getting a tax 'credit', in order to 'pay' a tax? What convoluted logic 'they' have gone thru, in order to concoct this STUPID thing!

And yes, the 'Battle' you're talkiing about, (between those who believe the Constitution is 'outdated', and those who believe we need to uphold the Constitution) has been going on, for some time. The real question is what ARENA will this battle 'play out', in? So far, it has been in SCOTUS, and in Politics; Repubs/Conservatives at least put on a show of being 'Constitutionalists', and Dems/Libs, while they may give lip service to the Constitution, are clearly of the 'camp' that feels it is unduly restraining on their goal of having a centalised Federal Gov't dictate everything.

Seems there is a real need for a '3rd' party; Libertarians. Unfortunately, while Libertarian ideas and ideals appeal accross party lines, there seem to be a variety of factors that prevent the Libertarian party from gaining any REAL 'traction'.Presumably, THEY are working hard, to discredit Libertarianism, paerhaps even 'organising' an 'official' Libertarian party, that 'goes no where', as a part of discrediting it? Certainly BOTH parties colluded, to destroy the party that organised around Ross Perot, DURING the election, with Repubs (Pat Buchannan) dealing the 'death blow', AFTER the election. So, it IS a kind of 'modus operandi' used succesfully in the past, to deal with any '3rd' party threat.
I note 'America Elect' shut down THEIR operaion. The 'occupy' movement also doesn't seem to being doing anything, as far as organising to put forth an alternative candidate. Tea party IS concentrating on the Senate races, which is SMART, cause an awful lot of stuff goes on in Congress, while the majority of Americans concentrate on the Presidential politics, but the Tea Party SEEMS to have 'accepted' Romoney, unfortunately.So, seems like the effort your 'touting' on a regular basis will be the only VIABLE alternative, to the hack, 2 party no real difference, corrupt politics as usual crap which has got us where we are, which includes a steady eroding of our libertities, etc.

I have NO confidence Romoney will appeal o'bummercare, and suspect his administration would work to ratify this U.N. treaty your talking about. "Same old wine, (and WHINE), in a brand new bottle'. So sad, what we've become!Jim

[aljhoa]

The United Nations (abbreviated UN in English, and ONU in French and Spanish), is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace.
United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


By Jerome Horowitz

United States acceptance of the United Nations Charter was under the treaty power found in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution in which various powers of the President are listed. The treaty power provision reads as follows:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
The question of constitutionality of acceptance of the United Nations Charter under the treaty power hinges on whether the United Nations Charter constitutes a treaty in the sense intended by that provision.

The treaty power is discussed in The Federalist in Numbers 64 written by John Jay, and 75 written by Alexander Hamilton.
It is there clearly indicated that the term "treaty" is used in the Constitution to refer to a bargain or contract between two independent sovereign nations pertaining to subjects that are customarily and traditionally considered to be treaties.

The concept that under the treaty power the President and two-thirds of the Senators present could surrender American independence was completely inconsistent with the limited extent of the authority the Framers felt should be given to the federal government. How out of harmony with constitutional principles such a concept is becomes even clearer when one considers two particular facts. One is that the colonists had only recently fought a bloody and [p. 135] terrible war to gain their independence. The other is their great suspicion and distrust of public officials.(11) In fact, as is pointed out in Chapter 2 of this work, one of their principal objects in designing the Constitution was to protect the people from improper action of government officials. Guided by these thoughts they surely would not have empowered the President and two-thirds of the Senators present to bargain away American independence without the consent of the people.

Inspired Constitution :: The Elders of Israel and the Constitution

Al

[Bizzy]

Seems there is a real need for a '3rd' party; Libertarians. Unfortunately, while Libertarian ideas and ideals appeal accross party lines, there seem to be a variety of factors that prevent the Libertarian party from gaining any REAL 'traction'.Presumably, THEY are working hard, to discredit Libertarianism, paerhaps even 'organising' an 'official' Libertarian party, that 'goes no where', as a part of discrediting it? Certainly BOTH parties colluded, to destroy the party that organised around Ross Perot, DURING the election, with Repubs (Pat Buchannan) dealing the 'death blow', AFTER the election. So, it IS a kind of 'modus operandi' used succesfully in the past, to deal with any '3rd' party threat.
"Same old wine, (and WHINE), in a brand new bottle'. So sad, what we've become!Jim

Hi Jim
In my wild and crazy youth I was a member of the Libertarian party, even though at the time i was actively working on both of Reagan's campaigns. I was also a member of the Conservative Party for a while when our Tom Ridge was supporting the semi automatic ban when he was trying to become governor.
So I agree there is a need for a 3rd party. However I like many of those who are of the same mind do not want to make the BIG jump to fully embrace 3rd party escpecially on a national level becuase we are afraid that in so doing we will allow the greater of two evils to be elected.
I could not live with myself if I voted for a 3rd party which weakened the republican party enough to allow Komrad Obama to get re-elected.

Another reason why I got away from the Libertarian party is that after college I was concidering a run for for public office. My family is very strong in the party and I was asked to run. So if I wanted to advance in poitics as I did in my youth I had to be in a main stream party. Obviously I didn't persue that mostly because of the skeletons in my closet
Bizzy

[dutchdivco]

Bizzy

There is NO REAL DIFFERENCE, between 'Komrad O'bummer', and 'Komrad Romoney'; THEY ARE THE SAME! This idea, that "if you vote for a 3rd party, you will not only be 'wasting' your vote, but will 'give' the election to the 'other side'" is SPURIOS, as there IS no 'other side'; And, this argument is ONE of the things that keeps a 3rd party from gaining traction.

Komrad Romoney will NOT repeal O'bummer Care, its 'too good' of an issue, for repubs to run on, for them to want to 'lose' it, as a 'rallying point' for their base. Therefore, Repubs aren't going to take it off the table, just as they USE immigration. Dems do the same thing, with Social Insecurity; they USE it, to scare old people into voting democratic, by saying Repubs want to dismantle it.

Both parties put their own, short-term interests above the countries,or the people. Both are in the pockets ofthe Lobbyists, and the interests they represent. And both manipulate the truth, and public opinion, to servetheir interests. So WHY would you continue to support such a system?

I understand what you are saying; but, I ALSO understand how this very 'argument' is being used to keep the status quo; DEMONISE the 'other side', in part so you can then say "Oh, but if you vote for a '3rd party', you'll be enabling this 'other side' (Demon) to win!" Thing is, they are BOTH demons, and NEITHER 'deserves' our support! Otherwise, we'll just continue to get jerked around, the way we always have. "To do the same thing, over and over again, while expecting different results, is a pretty good definition of INSANITY! And, never has it been clearer; voting for ROMONEY is INSANE.
He will simply be an O'bummer 'clone'! No REAL, substantive policy differences between the 2. At least, thats my opinion.Jim

[aljhoa]

We should pay heed to the words spoken by Edmund Burke, who said,
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”

Those of us who work to preserve the sovereignty of the United States must work to expose the Dulles delusion —

By Jerome Horowitz

One of the most insidious aspects of government paternalism is that it deprives people of the will to be free. By means of continued doses of government welfare, people are transformed from lovers of freedom, motivated by a spirit of independence, to seekers after security unsure of their ability to stand on their own feet with the help of God. They are willing to forget about freedom if the government will promise them security.

This latter condition is little different in principle from a willingness to barter one's own freedom in exchange for a promise of security from a master—in other words to sell oneself into slavery. Slaves have their lives and a considerable freedom of movement if they convince their masters they will do only what their masters wish. Any property they have would be subject to the control of their masters; but this is not of great importance to a slave because he is fed, clothed and housed by his master anyhow.

Inspired Constitution :: The Elders of Israel and the Constitution

By Jerome Horowitz

The question of constitutionality of acceptance of the United Nations Charter under the treaty power hinges on whether the United Nations Charter constitutes a treaty in the sense intended by that provision.

The treaty power is discussed in The Federalist in Numbers 64 written by John Jay, and 75 written by Alexander Hamilton.
It is there clearly indicated that the term "treaty" is used in the Constitution to refer to a bargain or contract between two independent sovereign nations pertaining to subjects that are customarily and traditionally considered to be treaties.
Inspired Constitution :: The Elders of Israel and the Constitution

Al

[rickoff]

I note 'America Elect' shut down THEIR operaion. The 'occupy' movement also doesn't seem to being doing anything, as far as organising to put forth an alternative candidate.

Both Americans Elect and the Occupy movement have been proven to have been organized and supported by leftist progressives, a.k.a. marxists.

[rickoff]

Regarding Barry's claimed attendance at Columbia University, there is very little to support that as being truthful. Barry, of course, refuses to release any of his college transcripts or applications. The applications, of course, are suspected to contain information that would confirm Barry had applied as a foreign student. Barry claims to have earned a 3.7 grade average during his college years, so why wouldn't he at least be happy to release the transcripts that would prove this? The only logical answer, in my opinion, is that he has no records, and at least one Columbia professor who taught there during the time Barry claims to have attended says that he has no recollection of Barry.


Henry Franklin Graff, professor emeritus of history at Columbia for 46 years, has cast serious doubt on claims that Barry attended classes at the New York City university.
Henry Franklin Graff



“I have no recollection of Barack Obama at Columbia, and I am sure he never attended any of my classes.” Graff has stated. "For 46 years, I taught political history, diplomatic history and one of the pioneering courses on presidential history, and every future politician of note who went through Columbia in those years took one or more of my classes – every one, that is, except Barack Obama. Nobody I knew at Columbia ever remembers Obama being there.”

[dutchdivco]

Yearbook pictures?

Does Columbia publish a 'yearbook'? Has anyone LOOKED, to see if there are any pictures of Barry? Granted, it WOULDN'T be conclusive, as there COULD be some 'explanation' for no pictures, ("Lets get this straight; you were 'out sick' all 4 years, JUST when the class pictures were being taken?!!!") but at least it wouldn't require a freedom of info request, or be protected by 'privacy concerns', or whatever.

Difficult to believe college transcripts, ESPECIALLY for a Candidate for office, aren't 'public information'. Once you 'apply' for a job, (highest in the land) you should wave a 'right to privacy', I should think.

Unfortunately, our FF 'depended' on the 'Forth estate', and Freedom of the press, to insure that Candidates were 'properly vetted', and the press has been co-opted, coerced, and corrupted (HEY, the "3-C's"!) just like Congress has.

Jim

[rickoff]

Does Columbia publish a 'yearbook'? Has anyone LOOKED, to see if there are any pictures of Barry?

Yes, Columbia keeps a collection of all past yearbooks in their Butler Library archives, however these are not available for browsing online according to a Columbia librarian I asked.

Sources who have in fact looked through the Columbiana archives at Butler Library say that Barry is not found in the yearbooks, and is also not shown in a photo of the 1983 Columbia University Black Students Organization, despite claiming to have been involved with the organization.

[IndianaBoys]

Audit the Fed (H.R. 459)

Tomorrow, Thursday July 12, 2012, starts the final push to pass Audit the Fed (H.R. 459) out of the House and advance one step closer to yanking back the curtain on the Fed’s secrecy.

A full floor vote in the House is just around the corner.

Now they will be on record as to who is against this.

IndianaBoys

[Joit]

http://static4.businessinsider.com/i...0004/libor.jpg
Keiser Report: From Tommy Guns to Credit Guns (E312) - YouTube

[aljhoa]

Published on Jul 1, 2012 by lnfowar

A story about the fire at the heart of suffering.
Bringing together dancers, musicians, visual artists and 3d animators, the film takes a critical look at the events of the past decade that have shaped our world.

I pet goat II and the NEW WORLD ORDER The beginning of the End - YouTube

Illuminati symbolism . I, Pet Goat II by Heliofant Showing The Next 9/11 False Flag - YouTube


Al

[aljhoa]

"The greatest lie ever told, the ones Republicans most want you to believe, is that President Obama is a classic tax and spend liberal.

In truth, under Obama taxes have hit a 30-year low, in part because of tax cuts enacted by the president as part of the stimulus package."
The greatest lie ever told: President Obama is a classic tax and spend liberal

USA is a Constitutional REPUBLIC - NOT a democracy!

Al

[rickoff]

"The greatest lie ever told, the ones Republicans most want you to believe, is that President Obama is a classic tax and spend liberal.

In truth, under Obama taxes have hit a 30-year low, in part because of tax cuts enacted by the president as part of the stimulus package."
The greatest lie ever told: President Obama is a classic tax and spend liberal

That's not quite the "truth," Minoly. Yes, tax revenues at both the state and federal level have fallen during Barry's stay in Washington, and that is all your chart actually shows. The reasons why there are less tax revenues available now than before Barry took office really have nothing to do with people paying lower tax rates under Barry. The actual reasons for the low tax revenues are high unemployment, business failures, cutbacks in consumer spending, a rapid outflow of wealth through persons and businesses relocating to other countries, etc.

Make no mistake about it - the passage of Obamacare placed into effect the largest tax increase in American history, and is only likely to be outdone by the UN carbon tax scheme which Ruling Class puppet Barry is planning to foist upon an unwitting public that foolishly believes it is the oil and utility companies that will pay these taxes. And what did we get for the "stimulus package?" The "stimulus" was a sham that only benefited the Wall Street elite, the banksters, and Federal Reserve. Someone obviously will have to pay for the cost of the "stimulus," and it will be those of us, and our children and grandchildren, who will pay ever increasing taxes in years to come. Quite obviously, there is no way to pay off the nearly 6 trillion increase in the national debt since Barry took office without substantially raising the tax rates on those who do pay taxes. If people think otherwise, they are living in a fantasy world of delusion.