Treaties are not the "Supreme Law of the Land" in the US. Most people never read the whole "Supremacy Clause," only the part that fits their agenda. So, let's take a look at the first part.
Article VI, paragraph 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, (and here's the key part) under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
"UNDER the authority of the United States!" Well, what is under the authority of the United States? It is those delegated powers, and ONLY those delegated powers given by the States to the federal government, when they ratified and amend over time, the Constitution.
Therefore, no law or treaty that does not comply with the Constitution, or is outside the Constitution in scope or power, is NOT BINDING or ENFORCEABLE on We the People of the United States! Same goes for unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, like the Clinton Gun Ban. It covers illegal Presidential actions like undeclared wars. It also covers unconstitutional opinions of the Supreme Court like Roe v Wade, which was constitutionally impossible, and also covers any laws, regulations or policies out of the Supreme Court because their power ends at the parties to the cases as delegated in Article III.
The point is to always remember the clause, "Under the authority of the United States." The federal government can not make laws, regulations, policies, or treaties, that are outside the specific powers delegated in the Constitution. This is because the individual States are like separate and independent countries, which, when they Unite, can delegate powers to the subordinate federal government, through the Constitution.
Greg Penglis
Creator and Host of the Action Radio Citizen Legislature
Yes, but - do you think the Biden admin. and democratic governors (and some republican governors as well) will say to The Who "sorry, but no can do?". They seem to be like The Who all-in for this happening.
We are all engaged in a physical and spiritual battle. The enemy is not lurking in the shadows or in a far away country. It is at our doorsteps banging on the door. These are not people offering help for the ills of the world. This is the evil that has created struggle, despair and pain. Their ammendments will be the one size solution that greatly benefits them.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King and others have noted, the only laws that are binding, given that our freedom and dignity derive from God, not the state, are MORAL laws, not immoral. David Love one wrote " In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King said we have a duty to disobey unjust laws. "I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws," he wrote. "Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"
King was unwavering in advocating for civil disobedience to break systems of oppression — disobeying unjust laws in the open, and with love.
What is an unjust law? According to King, it's one that degrades rather than uplifts humanity. Jim Crow segregation statutes were a prime example of unjust laws because "segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality," as King noted. "It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."
We are, strictly speaking, in a fasco-Marxist environment. And yes, fascism, as in the Nazis, or National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party, which adopted explicitly socialist planks at its first convention in Munich, Feb. 1920, and as it's founder, Benito Mussolini defined in his eponymous 1932 The Doctrine of Fascism - read for free here, https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf, 10 -12 pp or so, said.
Fascism and Marxism are cousins, the diff being nationalism vs. internationalism, and the former has the socialist state use big crony biz to conduct its operations, whereas the latter the govt directly controls the means of production. So, yes, these are differences, but not significant. And for both, as Mussolini said "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
And if you don't fight back now, it will be, as Orwell said, like a boot forever stomping on your face AND paradoxically at the same time like Huxley's soma.
Treaties are not the "Supreme Law of the Land" in the US. Most people never read the whole "Supremacy Clause," only the part that fits their agenda. So, let's take a look at the first part.
Article VI, paragraph 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, (and here's the key part) under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
"UNDER the authority of the United States!" Well, what is under the authority of the United States? It is those delegated powers, and ONLY those delegated powers given by the States to the federal government, when they ratified and amend over time, the Constitution.
Therefore, no law or treaty that does not comply with the Constitution, or is outside the Constitution in scope or power, is NOT BINDING or ENFORCEABLE on We the People of the United States! Same goes for unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, like the Clinton Gun Ban. It covers illegal Presidential actions like undeclared wars. It also covers unconstitutional opinions of the Supreme Court like Roe v Wade, which was constitutionally impossible, and also covers any laws, regulations or policies out of the Supreme Court because their power ends at the parties to the cases as delegated in Article III.
The point is to always remember the clause, "Under the authority of the United States." The federal government can not make laws, regulations, policies, or treaties, that are outside the specific powers delegated in the Constitution. This is because the individual States are like separate and independent countries, which, when they Unite, can delegate powers to the subordinate federal government, through the Constitution.
Greg Penglis
Creator and Host of the Action Radio Citizen Legislature
BlogTalkRadio.com/citizenaction
WriteYourLaws.com
There is also de facto and de jure. Let's set how many lawyers start filing cases. A motion straight to the US Supreme Court ought to be filed.
Or Congress could simply void the treaty by legislation. Ideally the Senate won't ratify it.
Laws that spell tyranny shouldn't be paid any heed. But what does it say these assholes want to morph laws against the rule of law.
It will be the Army that comes with. If they provide that.
Yes, but - do you think the Biden admin. and democratic governors (and some republican governors as well) will say to The Who "sorry, but no can do?". They seem to be like The Who all-in for this happening.
The Biden administration submitted the original process to make these amendments.
Excellent!
We are all engaged in a physical and spiritual battle. The enemy is not lurking in the shadows or in a far away country. It is at our doorsteps banging on the door. These are not people offering help for the ills of the world. This is the evil that has created struggle, despair and pain. Their ammendments will be the one size solution that greatly benefits them.
Truth.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King and others have noted, the only laws that are binding, given that our freedom and dignity derive from God, not the state, are MORAL laws, not immoral. David Love one wrote " In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King said we have a duty to disobey unjust laws. "I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws," he wrote. "Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"
King was unwavering in advocating for civil disobedience to break systems of oppression — disobeying unjust laws in the open, and with love.
What is an unjust law? According to King, it's one that degrades rather than uplifts humanity. Jim Crow segregation statutes were a prime example of unjust laws because "segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality," as King noted. "It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."
We are, strictly speaking, in a fasco-Marxist environment. And yes, fascism, as in the Nazis, or National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party, which adopted explicitly socialist planks at its first convention in Munich, Feb. 1920, and as it's founder, Benito Mussolini defined in his eponymous 1932 The Doctrine of Fascism - read for free here, https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf, 10 -12 pp or so, said.
Fascism and Marxism are cousins, the diff being nationalism vs. internationalism, and the former has the socialist state use big crony biz to conduct its operations, whereas the latter the govt directly controls the means of production. So, yes, these are differences, but not significant. And for both, as Mussolini said "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
And if you don't fight back now, it will be, as Orwell said, like a boot forever stomping on your face AND paradoxically at the same time like Huxley's soma.