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

http://www.wto.org/English/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm

And here are the agreements all World Trade Organization members have signed.

It's a most wicked web they've woven legally.

Can this Stupor Highway be used to deport these filthy parasites en mass or is it a one-way only street?

Good Question.

JUDY
Tancredo was speaking of this exact thing this morning.

The Senate was by-passed, therefore and "agreement" and not a treaty.

Although the 5 points of "treaty" were included in the "agreements"
they still circumvented the Constitution. Here's the key.

I believe, perhaps naively, as does Crocket, that what has been done can be undone.........using the same logic and tactics as were used in creating these travesties. It will take smart attornies, elected officials and powerful people's voice but I do believe that we can undo this mess if it doesn't go much further. One piece at a time, they can be DISMANTLED.

If not, I also believe that Americans will do what they must to maintain our sovereignty.

.

Originally Posted by Judy

To achieve what?

As I said, anything enacted by one Congress can be repealed by the next.

Originally Posted by Judy

The Congress you needed you had. It is gone as of January 2007.

No, the House I needed I had. The Senate was overloaded with RINOs and sellouts. We need to be more active and make sure that there are real patriots we can vote for in the general election.

Originally Posted by Judy

You won't get another until 2008 ... which is too late.

That's just defeatism for the reasons I previously provided.

Originally Posted by Judy

Congress can not unravel the authority they gave this President in 2002 with the TPA ... Trade Promotion Authority.

Yes, it can.

Originally Posted by Judy

They could repeal it for the future, but they can't unravel the agreements signed by this President legally under the authority he was granted by the U S Congress.

Another President can do that. What's more, Congress can confer no power that it does not hold itself. One may legally argue that Congress never had the power granted to it by the People to make such agreements. Consequently, they may certainly be repealed.

Originally Posted by Judy

If you could prove in an International Court that he used the power in violation of his oath and was in fact abusing the power granted in a treasonous unintended matter, then most courts would acknowledge such an agreement was a treasonous fraud and not the actions intended by the Congress.

You are confused. Treason is not tryable in an "international court." That's a wholly separate venue. Treason is an internal matter that is tried within a sovereign state by its own legal system. International courts are commercial venues by definition.

Originally Posted by Judy

But the courts would ask, well then why didn't you simply remove the person from power if you believed his actions were indeed treason against your country?

No, they wouldn't, because they would never get that far because the matter of treason would be foreign to such a court. What's more, it is the agreements themselves that grant power to the international courts. Dissolve the agreement and the court has no power to rule.

Originally Posted by Judy

International courts will not reverse the actions of George Bush unless we impeach him.

That's crazy talk (not to mention utterly uninformed). First off, why in Hell would we seek the jurisdiction of an international court unless we achknowledge that we are not a sovereign nation? Secondly, what would impeachment (another internal mechanism of our sovereign state) have to do with the ruling of an international court? Answer: NADA.

Originally Posted by Judy

Why would they?

So go ahead and work on your primaries and caucases. Maybe they'll come up with some legal explanation of why we want the world to accept our revocations of agreements to save our nation on the claim they weren't authorized or constitutional when we left the person in the office and allowed him to continue to make deals; sign deals; issue regulations and executive orders; and deal with the international community as the duly elected President of the United States with our consent for years after we knew what he was doing.

If you leave him in office, you are telling the world he has the authority from the US Congress to do what he's doing, which he does under TPA, with Consent of the American People to End our Nation, which he apparently does since no one thinks it horrific enough to just fire him.

That's such a rambling rant that I don't know where to begin. First off, YOU nor I have the power to impeach the President, so talking about MY "leaving him in office" is just silly. Congress must impeach a Preseident and this Congress is going to do nothing of the sort. So we focus on doing what we CAN do which is using our votes to attempt to sweep this den of vipers from office. At least that's a plan that has a chance to work. For all the viability your plan has, you may as well include having space aliens from the planet Osmoo implant a patriotism chip in Bish's frontal lobe.

Originally Posted by Judy

That is why every deal, every action, every agreement, every treaty ... is binding on the American People under International Law which is the jurisdiction of all these International Agreements ending our nation.

No, it isn't. Fraud negates any contract, and an agreement signed on behalf of a people by an agent not empowered to make such an agreement is by definition unenforceable. Congress cannot grant to another branch powers it does not have, and its powers are specifically limited by Amendment X. Furthermore, any agreement which would have the effect of violating any right of the People cannot be valid because the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits Congress from violating those rights. Congress cannot do by delegation that which it is prohibited from doing directly.

Originally Posted by Judy

The only defense we have against them is Treason and no one is going to buy that if it appears we don't think he's a big enough Traitor to just fire him and get him out of our government. Doing nothing to stop a Treason is Consent to it.

Again, treason is an internal matter that has nothing to do with international law or international agreements. All that matters in these commercial venues is either fraud or that a signatory agent was not empowered to make the agreement on behalf of the principal.

Look, we can go into moonbat mode and get absolutely nothing accomplished or we can understand the system and its limitations and keep our cool and maybe do some good.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

I have a severe problem with the entity - INTERNATIONAL LAW.

This is my block as I do not, cannot remember where the people of this nation declared their will to be lumped into "international law." Is the order/law {I've not researched it} binding on the American people? This is an interesting question. Furthermore, I could give a damn about international law considering they've never had the welfare of the United States of America in mind during their follies.

Also, my perception of the legality of "agreements" {many are NOT treaties} is very different. Agreements are not binding, if I'm not mistaken, by the Constitution. Bush has signed many AGREEMENTS, not all are treaties.
I'm no Constitutional lawyer, however, I do believe that this might be accurate.

And most importantly, there will never be a consensus in Congress to impeach a toad let alone bush AND cheney. It will never come to fruition.
Futile attempt and wasted time. That's the most important thing to consider, wasted time.

.

Bingo!

Again, Congress may not accomplish by delegation that which it is prohibited from accomplishing directly. NOTHING in our Constitution, which is the sole grant of powers to this government by We the People, empowers that government to dissolve this nation's sovereignty without a vote of the People and their several states. These agreements may have the color of legitimacy, but there is no underlying authority of the signatory agent to make the agreement on behalf of the People, which means that sovereign citizens CANNOT BE BOUND by such agreements. Now, the President can sign away Washington D.C. and the various territorias and possessions lock, stock, and barrel, because the federal governmetn has exclusive jurisdiction over those zones, but he cannot extend that authority to the several states except by acquiescence of the People. I, for one, will not acquiesce. Will you?

ALIPAC is going to do more to promote this information.

Added to the homepage

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=1703

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

We could opt out of NAFTA tomorrow if we had leadership that was prepared to follow through. We can "buy back" the Federal Reserve for a paltry sum pursuant the legislation that created if someone had the cajones to double-cross the international bankers.

NAFTA is only one of many Free Trade Agreements now. NAFTA is already an antique and obsolete.

Both NAFTA (Mexico) and GATT (Canada) are being replaced by this President with the SPP and NAU with the full authority granted him by the US Congress in 2002 with the Informed Consent of the American People every day he remains in office.

It's no longer about "cajones". It's about international business agreements, their legal validity, their binding nature according to World Courts ... not what you and I think ... not what Congressmen think ... what the World Courts think ... according to the Rule of Law .. not the Rule of American Law ... but the Rule of International Law.

Sure ... I still have the spirit. I'll write, call, email and fax. I'll go down screamin' and hollerin' like everyone else.

BS. I cited NAFTA as an example. the US may pull out of any agreement at any time. That includes GATT, the SPP (which is only a draft agreement at this point anyhow, and is in no way more intrusive than GATT and its WTO), the UN, and anything else.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but you need to first take a deep breath and then get some of your facts straight. A bit of basic study of domestic and international law wouldn't hurt, either.

Judy, I don't know if you are an innocent victim of this rhetoric or if you are one of the fearmongering instigators, but while there are some underlying facts here and some genuine reason for concern, all this sort of raving does is confuse an already complicated issue with pseudolegalisms that have absolutely no real legal merit and sew hopelessness and fear in the place of resolve and meaningful action.

It seems as if some people enjoy living on the edge of hysteria and bringing other people along for the ride. Every time I read a post about someone "vomiting for hours" about this or that piece of bad news, I wonder whether they shouldn't be under medical supervision.

There are people trying to actually accomplish reform in a sane and plausible manner, and people going hysterical and predicting impending doom add precious little to the process. I have been aware of the various dirty secrets of our government for decades now, and have carefully and systematically done whatever I could for myself and for my country with that information. Over that same period of time, I have watched endless strings of people lose their freakin' minds over the same information. I have seen predictions of the immediate demise of this country, of martial law and internment camps, or biochips and other nonsense that Americans will not go for any time soon for at least fifteen to twenty years. It's all just alarmism, some of which is the result of the mental breakdowns of mentally weak individuals who can't handle any sort of bad news, and some of which is intentional disinformation meant to cripple would-be patriots with fear. The one thing that's for sure is that it doesn't accomplish squat. Just as trembling in abject terror doesn't provide shelter from an oncoming hurricane, neither does all this wild theorizing protect our liberties or secure our country. Actually accomplishing shelter from a storm or defense of our country requires not only genuine hard work, but also careful advance planning. I resent having my efforts at meaningful planning and action undermined by defeatists who see the antiChrist in every dark corner and are so out of control of their own wits that they can't tell a phantom bogeyman from a real problem, and make obstacles that may be overcome with a bit of level-headed resolve into invinceable monstrosities that can be cast down by nothing less than divine intervention.

Sorry if that's a bit harsh, but there's real work to be done here and hysteria is so counterproductive as to not be allowable if we are to succeed.

CROCKET

I believe you have a photographic memory and for that, I am grateful!

Getting back to these traitorous "agreements."

food for thought:
Tancredo was explaining this morning this very thing.
He mentioned something that I was not aware of and that is the
5 Points of a Treaty as recognised by Congress. He didn't expound but did say that the "agreements" were NOT authorized by the Constitutionally required Senate vote {2/3 rds?} but that they DID HAVE THE 5 PTS. included. This is why they are AGREEMENTS and not treaties.

There's the sticky part of the situtation.

This is hinging on legalities of which my knowledge is almost zip.

your thoughts?

.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

CROCKET

I believe you have a photographic memory and for that, I am grateful!

Getting back to these traitorous "agreements."

food for thought:
Tancredo was explaining this morning this very thing.
He mentioned something that I was not aware of and that is the
5 Points of a Treaty as recognised by Congress. He didn't expound but did say that the "agreements" were NOT authorized by the Constitutionally required Senate vote {2/3 rds?} but that they DID HAVE THE 5 PTS. included. This is why they are AGREEMENTS and not treaties.

There's the sticky part of the situtation.

This is hinging on legalities of which my knowledge is almost zip.

your thoughts?

.

Basically, a treaty is a binding contract between nations lawfully ratified under the relevant laws of those nations. Agreements are, by definition, commercial in nature. They are not between nations per se, but rather by the commercial corporate governments of nations. They can be binding only so far as the government's commercial jurisdiction is binding upon the nation. So, for example, an agreement that compels performance by the citizens of a state is binding on those citizens only if the government has the power to compel such performance. In other words, our federal government cannot accomplish by agreement anything that would be repugnant to the Constitution that created it. It's power to compel performance is limited to thoe regions and individuals under its sole jurisdiction, namely D.C. and the territories and possessions. Now, the federal entity claims territorial control over any subsidiary or franchise of the federal corporation. Anyone holding an SSN or any entity possessing a TIN, for example, is so subject, because those are franchise numbers. However, it is not the person as a human being who is subject, but rather the franchise and the person in question as officer for that franchise.

Yeah, I know that it's complicated, but if we had not been duped by that bastard FDR into signing ourselves up as commercial property through Social Security (in which the "Security" part refers not to "safety," but rather to security as in that by which a debt is secured), we wouldn't be in this mess. Nevertheless, the agreements are enforceable only on those commercial entities subject to the direct jurisdiction of the federal entity, while a treaty is an agreement between nations that is enforceable against an entire nation.

As we all know, treaties not only may be broken or revoked, they are commonly terminated by one or another of those means. The same is true of agreements. But beyond simply terminating or swearing off an agreement, the scope of an agreement may be altered by altering the status of those presumed to be under the agreement. In other words, if we replaced the Income Tax with a flat tax or some other mechanism under the direct operational auspices of the federal government rather than by a foreign quasi-governmental service (the IRS) and if we replaced the Social Security system with a normal retirement plan, invoking the fraud under which both the income tax and Social Security were created, we could immediately free the American citizenry from the shackles of any international agreement entered into by the government whether the government chose to opt out of the agreement or not.

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.