THE NAU: IT'S THE ELEVENTH HOUR - GET BUSY

International courts would have nothing to do with determining whether the Treason occurred. Treason and lack of authority would be the reason the agreements already executed could possibly be voided like any document that you challenge as a forgery, a fraud if we had impeached Bush and Cheney. Since we haven't and aren't going to apparently, then these other parties have every reason to rely upon the validity of these agreements.

There is nothing the US can do to void these agreements that have already been executed ... hundreds of them ... during the past 18 months on SPP and NAU. We can stop any more from being executed; we can repeal the Free Trade Agreements; and withdraw from the WTO.

As to controlling the US Congress ... while we didn't control the US Senate ... we had the power to stop the Senate.

As of January 2007, we have neither.

And the contitutionality of any execution of any Free Trade Agreement or "signing" of this Presidency will be decided by the US Supreme Court which we lost on these issues long ago.

It's grim.

And Rangel wants to re-institute the draft so ... they're getting ready for the show down.

:(

First of all, Rangel does NOT want to institute the Draft!!
It's his ploy, that he has used for some years!! to keep the anti-war crowd revved! Please, don't buy into this very simple disinformation.
He's voted it down when it comes up for a vote. It's disinformation, folks.
Thrown out to confuse and drain off our attention from the urgent and also to keep the anti-war crowd angered.

Not going anywhere, at least right now.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

International courts would have nothing to do with determining whether the Treason occurred. Treason and lack of authority would be the reason the agreements already executed could possibly be voided like any document that you challenge as a forgery, a fraud if we had impeached Bush and Cheney. Since we haven't and aren't going to apparently, then these other parties have every reason to rely upon the validity of these agreements.

There is nothing the US can do to void these agreements that have already been executed ... hundreds of them ... during the past 18 months on SPP and NAU. We can stop any more from being executed; we can repeal the Free Trade Agreements; and withdraw from the WTO.

As to controlling the US Congress ... while we didn't control the US Senate ... we had the power to stop the Senate.

As of January 2007, we have neither.

And the contitutionality of any execution of any Free Trade Agreement or "signing" of this Presidency will be decided by the US Supreme Court which we lost on these issues long ago.

It's grim.

And Rangel wants to re-institute the draft so ... they're getting ready for the show down.

:(

---

I don't know where you learned your legal theory, but it's way off base. Again, treason is meaningless to an international court. Furthermore, the idea of trying Bush for treason is a pipe dream better suited to science fiction than to any practical discussion of how to remedy our problems. And this does not even take into account the fact that any charges or impeachment would be unlikely to occur or succeed until his term is over, or that prior to actual conviction (though I'm not sure what chrge one could bring in the first place) he would still have all the power of the Presidency to sign agreements or take actions. The whole idea is a non-starter.

Now, the idea that we "don't have the power to stop the Senate" is more of your absurd doomsaying and negativity. There are all sorts of procedural blocks that can be used, including but not limited to the filibuster. There is also the possibility of gaining the support of some of the new blue dog Dems. It ain't over 'til it's over. Real patriots absorbed the bad news of the election results and moved on to figuring out to work from this new reality. What possible good does all this naysaying you are heaping on us do except to help the other side by demoralizing the troops? I say get with the program of stop sandbagging those who are making an effort. Sorry, but that's how I see it. We don't need defeatists and we don't need a fifth column.

Quote:

---

Explaining the various possibilities is far more difficult than illuminating the possibilities of a specific course of action, but perhaps you get the idea. There is no reason for these agreements, which the federal government only has the power to obligate itself and its direct possessions to, could not be disposed of in any of a number of ways.

---

CROCKET
yes, it's difficult especially with the web that has been created but I'm following you. You're articulating what I know as truth.

A loud YES re: FDR. He's someone that's been raised on a pedestal just as JFK while folks aren't aware of the serious damage that they have done and that the American people are paying the price for these underhanded actions today.

JUDY
I'm not quite following your thinking, especially with the "international court" pertaining to our AGREEMENTS. I could be wrong, but it sounds as though you believe that the "international court" supercedes our Constitution and our Judicial Branch. If that's your belief, I would like to hear Scalia's thoughts as it pertains to our Judicial Branch. They, several of them, have been attempting to move us towards this position but Scalia has fought them tooth and nail. I have not a shred of legal background so I'm not able to discuss this with any credibility.

I do believe, from the little that I do know, that a proper CONGRESS can disengage us from these Agreements, piece by piece. Just as they were created.........piece by piece.

.

I can see by your tone and attitude Crocketsghost that you're getting a little worried you didn't support what needed to be done 18 months ago.

You're hanging the future of the United States on a filibuster?

Good. Won't stop SPP, won't stop NAU, won't even stop illegal immigration. All it will do is stop "comprehensive immigration reform".

Which is good and certainly worth the effort of a filibuster.

But it isn't stopping the highways, it isn't stopping the merger of our power grid, it isn't stopping the merger of our security systems, it isn't stopping the merger of our communications sytems, it isn't and won't stop anything to do with enjoining our 3 nations at their arteries and the investments being made. It would not be We the People going to international court ... it will be the multi-national corporations going to their own international court to enforce the agreements and protect their investments.

The Executive Branch not the Legislative Branch prevents this and this Executive Branch won't because this is this Executive Branch's Agenda which they are Executing with admirable skill and will continue to execute for 2 more years in a full spirit of "bipartisanship and cooperation".

As American Citizens, we don't even have a court to go to on any of this. The International Courts are business courts set up through the WTO and Free Trade Agreements.

We the People are already out of the loop, legally.

In fact the Free Trade Agreements of George Bush specifically over-ride our "public laws" by their terms and any business or foreign government can challenge any law anywhere in the United States and have that dispute decided by ... the WTO and their tribunal courts on the basis that the "public laws" interfere with the trade intended by the agreement which includes local, state and public laws and ordinances.

Taking the position that it would be a "waste of time" to fire a President and Vice President for Treason as they roam the world on Air Force One and Two as our duly authorized Leaders "leading" foreign nations, foreign businesses, foreign nationals and foreign investors into believing that they are executing the Will of the American People when they aren't ... is the silliest thing I've ever heard.

It compares to discovering you have an Embezzler in the Front Office sucking your bank accounts dry but while you're filing lawsuits and enacting strategies to solve the long-term problem ... you leave them in the Front Office with the Check Book instead of taking the Check Book away from them; changing the locks on the door; and locking them out of the Building ... so they can do no further harm.

And if you think a nation that doesn't have the gumption to do that to save its sovereignty is going to honor our ancestors and run blood in the streets is a Pipe Dream.

You can't solve a problem like this on the perimeter. You have to go to the ROOT which is not in Congress ... it's in the White House where it's always been.

And Crocket ... insulting me isn't going to change that fact.

8)

BTW: How are things in Iran lately? Looks like we're soliciting their aid to clean up the mess your boys have made in Iraq. :wink: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Quote:

---

Explaining the various possibilities is far more difficult than illuminating the possibilities of a specific course of action, but perhaps you get the idea. There is no reason for these agreements, which the federal government only has the power to obligate itself and its direct possessions to, could not be disposed of in any of a number of ways.

---

CROCKET
yes, it's difficult especially with the web that has been created but I'm following you. You're articulating what I know as truth.

A loud YES re: FDR. He's someone that's been raised on a pedestal just as JFK while folks aren't aware of the serious damage that they have done and that the American people are paying the price for these underhanded actions today.

JUDY
I'm not quite following your thinking, especially with the "international court" pertaining to our AGREEMENTS. I could be wrong, but it sounds as though you believe that the "international court" supercedes our Constitution and our Judicial Branch. If that's your belief, I would like to hear Scalia's thoughts as it pertains to our Judicial Branch. They, several of them, have been attempting to move us towards this position but Scalia has fought them tooth and nail. I have not a shred of legal background so I'm not able to discuss this with any credibility.

I do believe, from the little that I do know, that a proper CONGRESS can disengage us from these Agreements, piece by piece. Just as they were created.........piece by piece.

.

---

Just remember that there is no such thing as international law except for the mercantile laws, such as lex mercatorum and its seafaring counterpart, maritime admiralty. These are brutal jurisdictions designed to protect merchants and cargo, not individuals or their rights. Not only that, but while our domestic laws eschew both slavery and indentured servitude, the international mercantile laws have no such qualms and routinely treat individuals and entire populations as chattel.

In short, our nation's founders claimed that our law was based on the highest law of man, the Common Law, which in turn descends from the highest law of all, the law of the Creator, also referred to as the Natural Law. No international law can supersede that law, nor was it ever intended that our law be subordinated to those laws created by the monarchs or their merchants, which is what "international law" is.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

[quote:3qvgff1z]

---

[quote:3qvgff1z]JUDY
I'm not quite following your thinking, especially with the "international court" pertaining to our AGREEMENTS. I could be wrong, but it sounds as though you believe that the "international court" supercedes our Constitution and our Judicial Branch. If that's your belief, I would like to hear Scalia's thoughts as it pertains to our Judicial Branch. They, several of them, have been attempting to move us towards this position but Scalia has fought them tooth and nail. I have not a shred of legal background so I'm not able to discuss this with any credibility.

I do believe, from the little that I do know, that a proper CONGRESS can disengage us from these Agreements, piece by piece. Just as they were created.........piece by piece.

---

.[/quote:3qvgff1z][/quote:3qvgff1z]

Our US Constitution and our US Supreme Court do not decide disputes concerning international agreements. The reason is the law presumes ours would be biased in our favor the same way a Mexican Court would be biased towards Mexico. If the agreements were negotiated by an authorized person, which they were; and the agreements were approved if required by the appropriate body, which they were ... then all business conducted under them is protected. Our own laws would validate such agreements if they were executed by two Governors in matters between two states. So just take this law which is universal and apply it to two nations. We can change our mind and terminate the agreement if the agreement allows for it. But it doesn't affect the business conducted in good faith under them. It can prevent future business from being conducted but it can not unravel or reverse the business that occurred legally under the terms of the agreement while in force.

The sooner we withdraw from the WTO, the better; the sooner we terminate all the Free Trade Agreements the better; and the sooner we stop further regulations and agreements under SPP and NAU, the better.

8)

JUDY
this below contradicts your belief that the "international court" supercedes our Judicial Branch

Quote:

---

The sooner we withdraw from the WTO, the better; the sooner we terminate all the Free Trade Agreements the better; and the sooner we stop further regulations and agreements under SPP and NAU, the better.

---

As I said........dismantle it piece by piece.

The "roads" that you mentioned are being done per STATE and not thru an "agreement." This is their method by which they can SELL the roadways to international entities and have AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THEM.
These roads fall under STATE jurisdiction and not international law at this moment in time. That's why TEXAS is fighting so hard to stop their "corridor."

The remainder of your comment I've not looked into yet so I won't speak on it right now.

PIECE BY PIECE......this can be deconstructed.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I can see by your tone and attitude Crocketsghost that you're getting a little worried you didn't support what needed to be done 18 months ago.

---

Don't lecture me, lady. I've been working on these problems since before you ever knew they existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

You're hanging the future of the United States on a filibuster?

---

I am using what is currently available to me. Did you vote in the last primary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Good. Won't stop SPP, won't stop NAU, won't even stop illegal immigration. All it will do is stop "comprehensive immigration reform".

---

Oh, but raving and ranting about how we're doomed unless we trot off into fantasyland about impeaching the President for treason is going to get the job done? PLEASE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Which is good and certainly worth the effort of a filibuster.

But it isn't stopping the highways, it isn't stopping the merger of our power grid, it isn't stopping the merger of our security systems, it isn't stopping the merger of our communications sytems, it isn't and won't stop anything to do with enjoining our 3 nations at their arteries and the investments being made. It would not be We the People going to international court ... it will be the multi-national corporations going to their own international court to enforce the agreements and protect their investments.

---

Look, NONE of that stuff is going to get stopped unless we start getting real representation. I am proposing a means for at least attmepting to accomplish that. If you think that holding up a sign saying "the sky is falling" is going to accomplish that in a meaningful way, go for it. Just don't be surprised when I don't drop a dime in your tin cup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

The Executive Branch not the Legislative Branch prevents this and this Executive Branch won't because this is this Executive Branch's Agenda which they are Executing with admirable skill and will continue to execute for 2 more years in a full spirit of "bipartisanship and cooperation".

---

You're not making sense. Just a minute ago you were saying that we had lost because of the election a few weeks ago. That election had nothing to do with the Executive Branch, so which is it? Are we in trouble because of the President or because of Congress? I am saying that any meaningful action has to eventually address all of the issues, but we can't directly deal with the Presidency until 2008. That's why I want to get an initiative rolling to draft someone for the Presidency who we have a reasonable chance of getting into the primaries and at least influencing the debate. That strikes me as preferable to fantasizing about trying the President for treason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

As American Citizens, we don't even have a court to go to on any of this. The International Courts are business courts set up through the WTO and Free Trade Agreements.

---

Funny, you were just advocating undertaking actions in order to have standing in the "international courts." Which is it? You're all over the map with your self-contradictory rants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

We the People are already out of the loop, legally.

---

No, we're not. That you do not understand your legal rights nd remedies is no one's fault but your own. When you go off about a need to prove treason so that we can seek relief from the international courts, you're like a person trying to defend herself against a traffic ticket by citing the French Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

In fact the Free Trade Agreements of George Bush specifically over-ride our "public laws" by their terms and any business or foreign government can challenge any law anywhere in the United States and have that dispute decided by ... the WTO and their tribunal courts on the basis that the "public laws" interfere with the trade intended by the agreement which includes local, state and public laws and ordinances.

---

What free trade agreements of George Bush? The only free trade agreement we are signatory to were signed by Bill Clinton, not George Bush. Do you know what you're talking about with ANY of this stuff? You spout of about what the specific legal ramifications and entanglements of various agreements are without even having a handle on WHAT the agreements are or who signed them. You have guzzled the Koolaid, and now you're spouting conspiracy jargon as fact.

Do you even know what a "public law" is or over whom such a law has jurisdiction? Do you know what the territorial jurisdiction of a public law is? Do you know the difference between federal code and positive law? I didn't think so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Taking the position that it would be a "waste of time" to fire a President and Vice President for Treason as they roam the world on Air Force One and Two as our duly authorized Leaders "leading" foreign nations, foreign businesses, foreign nationals and foreign investors into believing that they are executing the Will of the American People when they aren't ... is the silliest thing I've ever heard.

---

Let's step out of Narnia for a moment and back to the real world. How in hell do YOU presume to fire the President? Do you not understand that there are only very limited and specific actions which can be carried out only by very limited and specific individuals that can accomplish that goal, and that articles of impeachment must be predicated on specific violations of the law backed by specific evidence?

After you take a moment to wrap your head around that, ask yourself what the odds are that anyone will not only be able to convince a Representative to introduce Articles of Impeachment, but to convince the House to ratify the articles and then the Senate to convict. By what process you determined that such fantasy was achievable I cannot imagine, but surely you understand that if the President is guilty of treason, then so are most of the members of the House and Senate who would be responsible for prosecuting him for actions that they themselves signed off on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

It compares to discovering you have an Embezzler in the Front Office sucking your bank accounts dry but while you're filing lawsuits and enacting strategies to solve the long-term problem ... you leave them in the Front Office with the Check Book instead of taking the Check Book away from them; changing the locks on the door; and locking them out of the Building ... so they can do no further harm.

---

No, it doesn't compare to that at all, because your little analogy assumes that the person in question is acting alone, not in concert with most of the rest of the company. Again, feed your fantasy until you can no longer distinguish it from reality if you like, but that still won't accomplish a damned thing here in the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

And if you think a nation that doesn't have the gumption to do that to save its sovereignty is going to honor our ancestors and run blood in the streets is a Pipe Dream.

---

Oh good Lord! You're off the deep end...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

You can't solve a problem like this on the perimeter. You have to go to the ROOT which is not in Congress ... it's in the White House where it's always been.

---

Silly woman, you have no means of even beginning to accomplish ANY of the things you suggest, and even the slightest bit of common sense tells us that regardless of whether or not there's a word or truth or modicum of accuracy to any scneario you allege, the course of action you suggest is simply not viable.

On the other hand, the approach I am suggesting also addresses the Presidency in that it seeks to find a patriotic American to make an unexpected impact on the primary process and will either provide a viable candidate or will at least manage to shift the debate to things like the selling out of our country. The bad guys don't like to operate in the full light of day, and so even managing to get a caucus elected that can expose the dangers of trade agreements and the abrogation of our sovereignty will have a positive impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

And Crocket ... insulting me isn't going to change that fact.

8)

BTW: How are things in Iran lately? Looks like we're soliciting their aid to clean up the mess your boys have made in Iraq. :wink: :lol: :lol:

---

I am not insulting you. If my accurate representations of your rants are unflattering, that's not my fault. Also, I'm wondering what "fact" you refer to. You have laid out such a convoluted mess of pseudolegalities and fantasy that I can discern no argumable "fact."

As for your comment about Iran, you are making less sense by the moment. I have no idea who you think "my boys" are. Maybe you need to go and lie down before your posts get any stranger.

Impeaching the President may not accomplish much, but it would be a start. Who really needs to be exposed are others than Bush who support his interaction with the NAU concept. I don't care about any international law, our President can pull out of any Treaty or agreement at any time, any place and he should do so when HE KNOWS that such an agreement has a negative impact on the social fabric of this country..It is not him who has the authority to change cultures (or alter ours). That's somehing that every American comes to accept WITH TIME, not something that is secertly thought out and implemented by those in power at their very whim and force it down our throats. For that, he and these traitrous others are criminals and should be thrown out on their rears. These scumbags will do anything for a buck.