Comments on: UN: International Law has “Absolute Authority” – by Joseph Klein

By: louis_wheeler

louis_wheeler — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:09:26 +0000

All is not lost if Obama's treaties, which give up US sovereignty, get ratified and the bureaucracy, judiciary and legislature meekly go along with it.

Just as the US Constitution trumps the UN or a "one world government," so does the US electorate trump the judiciary, legislative and executive branches.

There are a number of ways in which the role of the current Leftist government can be curbed through amending the US Constitution. One of those ways bypasses the Federal Government, altogether, and goes directly to the state legislatures. If 34 of the state legislatures call for a constitutional convention and 39 ratify the results of that convention, then those changes will become the supreme law of the land.

http://www.federalismamendment.com/

This Constitutional Convention could not be done behind close doors; it would be televised. The meaning of each change will be publicly debated as will which of the current laws which would be invalidated.

It seems obvious that Obama is trying to push America into an ever greater crisis which he will, then, offer only one solution -- Social Democracy such as they have in Europe. He will bankrupt the US government and sabotage our economy and currency. He will attempt to gain control of the press, TV and the internet to suppress any opposition. He will depress world trade through protectionism and will offer the UN as a means to mediate that discord. He will attempt to confiscate weapons in the hands of the population. He will create Ex-Post-Facto laws to punish opposition. He will attempt to rig our elections through the 2010 Census and organizations such as A.C.O.R.N. He will create his own version of the "Hitler Youth" through the G.I.V.E. Act which demands community service and the participation in Obama's summer camps. He will reward youthful informants for turning in their parents and neighbors for participating in Anti- Obama acts or speech. He will continue to treat the US Constitution as a meaningless scrap of paper.

The question is how he will respond to such a Constitutional Convention? He would certainly try to discount it and its results. But, will he try to nullify it, which is an impeachable offense -- a high crime? Will he declare himself "above the Constitution?" Will he use the military to suppress any resulting protests? Will he nullify any election which throws him or his supporters out of power?

We are a long way from such dire results, but this is the path down which Obama seems to be moving. This may come down to violence or even Civil War. Let us hope not.

But, Conservatives should prepare mentally for that possibility.

By: sensible

sensible — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:37:20 +0000

Oh yes — the UN has absolute moral authority: they formulate “Human Rights Commissions” which are populated AND chaired exclusively by the most murderous of totalitarian butchers [i.e., those who should be on trial themselves for crimes against humanity, rather than being granted power to judge others -- e.g., Syria & Libya, to name a couple] who then presume to pass judgment over the rest of the world [i.e., those nations who DO go out of their way to respect and preserve human rights]. I haven't encountered such a level of blatant hypocrisy and outright idiocy since I read Animal Farm! Once again, Life imitates Art . . . but WE are the fools, for not first having ejected the UN from this country, and second, for not having stated outright and officially that the very same leaders of these hypocritical nations should be sitting in the prisoner's dock of the International Court, rather than at the conference tables of the UN Human Rights Commission — i.e., by discarding “diplomatic etiquette and protocol” and simply — for ONCE — “just telling it is — for REAL!” What a breath of fresh air THAT change in international honesty would be! I hope I live to see THAT day . . .

By: doubtitall

doubtitall — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:11:56 +0000

Yes, the UN must have absolute authority to prevent America from stopping lawless tyrants from killing and enslaving hundreds of millions of innocent people.

What gives the UN any moral authority at all? Tyrants and other lowlife scum bribed by the tyrants agreeing to rules they will violate with impunity if the rules become inconvenient to them? That gives the UN moral authority?

Without some kind of power of enforcement, morality is nothing but empty words. The only authority the UN has ever had has been that which comes from the barrel of a US weapon. It is long past time we stopped propping up UN "authority."

By: truthywood

truthywood — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:48:52 +0000

Yes UN must have absolute authority so that tyrants in America do not go around the world and kill millions of innocent people.

By: stjames

stjames — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:44:39 +0000

A UN treaty will be the way to circumvent the constitution and take away our right to own firearms. I think the UN is already on record as not wanting us to own fire arms. It will take a willing Congress and Supreme Court for this to happen, but stranger things have already happened.

Josephwiess, I agree about choosing the senators by the state legislature.

By: diginess

diginess — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:03:05 +0000

Name me a country whose government we've overthrown through the use of the CIA that wasn't afterward run by a dictator. How is that supporting democracy? How is that not undermining international law? How is that not financially assisting non-democratic, despotic nations? How are we not then a partner in their philosophy of government?
How many dictators have we supported and do we support currently? Probably quite a few. Your argument that we defend democracy around the world doesn't make any sense.

By: diginess

diginess — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:56:43 +0000

How about the United States just honor our treaties we make with other countries, namely the Geneva Conventions? Then we wouldn't have people like him saying we needed another treaty. It seems rather funny to me that they are talking about yet another treaty when they already have one. It just needs to be enforced, that's all.

By: brimp

brimp — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:19:11 +0000

A treaty can not override the Constitution. To change the Constitution, you need to get the proposed change passed the house and senate, each with 2/3rds of those voting, and be ratified by 3/4 of the states before the president can sign it. A treaty only needs to get the president and a majority of the senators voting to ratify a treaty. The law of the land can not be changed by a treaty. Anything outside of the mechanism provide for in the Constitution for changing the constitution would violate the Constitution. America is hanging on to it's constitution by threads. Be on the lookout for a conference of the states. If this happens, a new constitutional convention could be called for.

By: sensible

sensible — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:05:03 +0000

I totally agree, josephwiess — and I agree with the Founding Fathers on just about everything, with ONE key exception, about which I have a complaint with them: they provided no means by which to impeach Supreme Court Justices. That they are appointed for lifelong terms is itself ridiculous; that even the most egregious of them cannot possibly be removed [other than by natural causes or assassination] is beyond ludicrous.

By: lancebrownsteine

lancebrownsteine — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:35:32 +0000

To the extent that the U.S. ever accepts any judgments by any international body that includes the votes of a non-democratic member, the U.S. will by definition becomes less democratic. If we felt obliged to be controlled by a vote from a terror-supporting country, then by definition we become, indirectly, a supporter of terrorism. If our leadership makes any kind of written or hand-shake agreement with another country that is a violator of international law, as we define it, then we become a partner in undermining international law.

To the extent that we financially or morally assist any terror-supporting, non-democratic, monarchistic, theocratic, or despotic nation, then by definition we become a partner in their philosophy of government. Basically, to whatever extent we surrender our own democratic philosophy to those who are against it, America surrenders democracy. When we make our enemies into our friends, then we self-destruct and disappear as a guiding light. By allowing other non-democratic nations to undermine the legitimacy of democratic allies, we undermine our own legitimacy.

The Goldstone report is probably the clearest test yet, since the "Zionism is racism" vote and the Durban farce, of whether America remains intact or dissolves. The nations of the world who give few rights to individuals and all power to tyranny, are watching Obama closely.

By: josephwiess

josephwiess — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:14:26 +0000

The court needs to wake up and realize that our constitution is the template for the laws we pass, not some stupid UN mandate from the hague.

I think it's time that we go back to the way things used to be, and that starts with our senators being chosen by the state legislature, instead of by popular vote. We already have representatives that are elected by the people, and the senators are supposed to represent the states.

We also need to go back to the idea that any treaty that washington signs, has to be completely ratified by the states before it goes into effect.

It's time for the people to take back control over the government.