Climate Change treaty will end United States’ sovereignty
When I wrote the following in this post I was alluding to something but I never actually came out and said it:
In addition to the real climate change agenda of American politicians on a national level to tax and regulate the behaviors of American citizens there is also a second, worldwide agenda to redistribute the wealth from rich nations to poor nations. That is what this push by the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development is really all about. The global redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that rich nations, such as the United States, will be required to send money to the poor nations.
What I was alluding to was a loss of American sovereignty to the United Nations, now we have the following video that emphasizes that President Obama may be signing away American sovereignty if he signs the climate change treaty in Denmark in December.
We need to stop this at all costs!
America's Watchtower 
You’re a moron.
LikeLike
Someday you are going to come here and offer more than just insults, until then you will not draw a reaction from me.
Thank you for stopping by.
LikeLike
This is outrageous. It should be front page news. I heard about this but I couldn’t believe nobody was talking about it.
LikeLike
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no treaty can supercede the Constitution no matter how many libs try to lie about it. Read the Federalist papers……..and ALL the founding fathers documents……
Any part of a treaty the violates our Constitution and Bill of Rights, that part is nul and void and the Constitution rains Supreme just like State Constitution’s that violate the U.S. Constitution would be nul and void.
Read and understand our history before those in power now write and rewrite history leaving out the truth of this great experiment called America.
LikeLike
Amen!
LikeLike
In searching the internet I was able to find conflicting Supreme Court decisions on whether under article six of the constitution the constitution trumps treaties or visa-versa.
I agree that the constitution should trump all, but do you trust this president and two thirds of the senate to do what is right and if they don’t do you trust the Supreme Court to do what is right? The Supreme Court is precariously split right now, we came within one vote in the Heller case of losing an individual’s right to bear arms. If Obama gets one more Supreme Court appointment and that appointment replaces the wrong justice all bets are off.
LikeLike
I found this thread a bit late. Please excuse my tardiness.
Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I watched a C-Span program about the Supreme Court. There was a portion of the program during which the court was convened. It was announced as “The Supreme Court of the United States.” That title is revealing in itself, as in American law there are at least three meanings for “United States”. (Source: State Citizens Stop Voting: An Outline of Legal Reasons, by John E. Trumane)
“United States” can mean:
A. The name of the sovereign nation, occupying the
position of other sovereigns in the family of nations
B. The federal government and the limited territory over
which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority
1. to be a federal citizen is to be a “citizen of the
United States” in this second sense of the term
C. The collective name for the States united by and under
the Constitution for the United States of America
2. to be a State Citizen is to be a “Citizen of the
United States” in this third sense of the term
(i.e. a “Citizen of one of the States United”)
A portion of the C-Span program featured an interview with Chief Justice John Roberts. In that interview, he contrasted the Supreme Court with that of a common law court. This tells me clearly that the Supreme Court does not hear common law claims. One visible distinction is that common law courts do not have time limits for oral argument.
Another telling clue about the nature of the present Supreme Court is revealed in the sculpture on the frieze of the building. A portion of it depicts King John with the Magna Carta. King John signed the Magna Carta at the point of a sword. Its provisions were obtained by force of arms by English freemen. One of these provisions is “No freeman shall be deprived of his court.” King John later repudiated the Magna Carta, which was of no effect, because if he has refused to sign it, he would have lost his head and the opportunity to repudiate it ex post facto. But the fact that King John is shown with the Magna Carta in the frieze tells me that the Magna Carta is not recognized by the present Supreme Court. And if it is not recognized, it means it is not empowered to hear matters involving the People. It can hear only matters involving federal citizens and the federal government. Federal citizens may be statutory corporations, or non-statutory corporations, aka “individuals”, both of which are types of “persons”, but one thing a federal citizen cannot be is a man or woman, i.e. one of the People. That is because the People created the federal government, and a servant cannot exercise jurisdiction over its master.
So, for the foregoing reasons, I only use Supreme Court cases to demonstrate the limits on the power and authority of the federal government. The Supreme Court does not purport to deal with the People, and one would be mistaken to believe that it does. The last thing I recall the Supreme Court saying about the People is found in Chisholm v. Georgia, where Justice Wilson reminds us that the sovereignty formerly held by King George devolved upon the People when the surrender of the King’s armies was secured. This fact remains true to this day.
Now as for treaties becoming the law of the entire land, there is much ignorance on this point, but it is easily corrected by a careful reading of Article VI, para. 2. Only those treaties made under the delegated authority of the United States become the supreme law of the land. An accord on global climate entered into by a federal government is without the delegated authority given to it. It could therefore be effective only within that territory of the federal government, over which Congress exercises legislative authority under Article IV’s “needful Rules and Regulations” clause. But because so many Americans have been deceived into declaring themselves to be “citizens of the United States”, either through voter registration, drivers license applications, and social security agreements, the federal government will attempt to broadcast the terms of its “non-delegated authority treaties” into every state of the union, and the states will be powerless to stop it. Only the People will be able to prevent it, by bringing an action against the United States government in a court convened by the People. Such a court is called a Court of Record, and in it, the People are both Plaintiff and Tribunal. Any “judge” who occupies the bench in such a proceeding becomes a “presiding magistrate”, a minister of the court, separate and distinct from the tribunal, and without authority to speak for the court. The People enter their order in their capacity as Sovereign. That is the method by which the People must control its servant government. More info on the concept may be found at http://www.1215.org.
LikeLike
I can not understand how anyone who considers themselves to be American is able to so willingly give over our sovereignty to another power. Since when is the Constitution subject to world opinion?
LikeLike
Does he consider himself and American? I don’t know. He certainly has no problem trotting around the globe and denouncing the United States.
LikeLike
Why is this not a story in the current news cycle? It should be. Hopefully it will be soon. Putting the USA into a “world government” sounds very prophetic to me. As in Biblical. How are we going to stop it?
LikeLike
It isn’t in the news cycle because as Anita Dunn said, they control the media. These are scary times, I don’t know if we can do anything to stop it.
LikeLike
One thing we’ve got going for us is that all treaties have to be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty, but the Senate refused to ratify it by a vote of 95-0… and the five senators who didn’t vote weren’t physically present.
The party split in the Senate is way too close to allow for a 2/3 majority vote on this preposterous treaty. They didn’t go for Kyoto, and I don’t see them going for Son of Kyoto.
The thing we CAN do is work the phones again… let our senators know that if they vote to ratify this piece of #%&^!, they are giving away our national soveriegnty on a silver platter, and they will never NEVER have any more say in the issue. And if you know senators, they like having their say-so more than anything else.
LikeLike
mama pj
unless I am mistaken the 95-0 vote was a vote before the Kyoto meeting when the senate told Clinton not to sign the agreement-
He didn’t sign it- The second week of the meeting, Gore came in and signed it, and it infuriated the senate to the point that clinton didn’t dare submit it to them for ratification.
LikeLike