More on the meddling Law of the Sea Treaty
I mentioned the Senate’s push for the Law of the Sea Treaty a week ago. It’s a sovereignty-undermining measure that would, as Frank Gaffney puts it, place “the U.N. on steroids by assenting to its control of seven-tenths of the world’s surface.”
Quin Hillyer weighs in today and urges conservatives to rally against the ill-advised treaty…which is embraced by President Bush:
From the U.S. Constitution: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made….” And: “This Constitution…and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
Despite these clear constitutional provisions, the Bush administration and the Democratic congressional leadership are trying to secure ratification of the so-called Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) — which creates an “International Seabed Authority” and an “International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,” which set up and oversee what have been described as “mandatory dispute resolution tribunals.” Those tribunals will have jurisdiction over “protection and preservation of the marine environment.” And nations that sign the treaty “shall” (in other words, it is mandatory) “enforce” all laws necessary to “control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.”
In other words, any alleged sea pollution that supposedly originates from within the land borders of the United States shall be subject to legal action under the aegis not of U.S courts, but of tribunals controlled by these foreign bodies.
That certainly doesn’t sound like “sovereignty.” It doesn’t sound like U.S. courts remain “the supreme law of the land.” It doesn’t sound like our own policies concerning activity on our own lands would enjoy “freedom from external control.”
The time is short. The treaty is expected to be put forth for Senate ratification some time this fall. But conservatives, for good reason, are beginning to rally against it. If President George W. Bush continues to push LOST, he risks a repeat of the fierce internecine battle against his own base that he lost so overwhelmingly on the subject of immigration. Moving forward with the treaty would therefore be both a truly horrible policy choice and sheer political folly.
Contact the White House:
comments@whitehouse.gov
202-456-1111
Contact Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Email here
202-224-2541
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Take Our Country Back
- That Just Seems Really Stupid « Tai-Chi Policy
- Giving It All Away! » Freedom Folks
- Michelle Malkin » George W. Bush: Crusader for Mexican death row murderers and international law meddlers, continued
- Tel-Chai Nation
- Michelle Malkin » The vote on LOST: American sovereignty on the line
- Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty « Aeneian Shores
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: George W. Bush, United Nations
JustOneMinute
» David Gregory To Host Meet The Press (While Hiding From It)
Belmont Club
» A self-made hellRiehl World View
» Georgia Run-offNewsBusters.org
» Four Years Later, Kerry Admits He's a LiberalHotline On Call
» Obama Records Radio Ad For LA House HopefulPoliPundit.com
» US Capitol Visitor Center OpensPower Line
» Newly-Discovered Ballots Boost FrankenHotline On Call
» The Fix: Martinez To Retire
When will our elected officials grow some gumption and tell the international “community” to go stuff it somewhere else? Time to move the UN out of US.
Etc.
Earth to common sense, come in common sense……This is yet another one of those “You have to be S___ing me” moments.
MM — I think you meant for the headline to read “Law of the Sea” instead of “Land of the Sea”. It’s Friday!
Mitch is my senator. He’ll be hearing from me today on this, for sure! Thanks so much for covering this. I have not seen this reported anywhere else. (Big surprise…)
I am so angry, I could spit…not on anyone of course.
Hasn’t the UN caused enough problems? I dont get the mindset of adding insult to injury.
What’s happened to George Bush? First he’s for illegal amnesty. Then he’s meddling in the Texas death row case in favor of the International Court and now this? He’s turning Clintonesque these past couple of years.
If he doesn’t watch it, he’s going to prove Jimmy Carter right when he says George Bush is the worst President he’s ever seen. Jimmy, not only the worst President of the 1900s, but also the worst ex-President ever.
Has dementia struck early?
One of the main composers of the LOST treaty was once a Communist until the Soviets fell. She is now a “green.” It’s interesting to note that when she was interviewed, she interpreted the LOST treaty as banning nuclear submarines as “environmental risks.”
My only question is this, “Is there anyone in the Administration that is in command of the facts on issues that it is pushing????”
Daily the GOP loses support because of bone-headed moves like bringing this treaty back from the dead.
Did it!
A first!
E-mailed my concerns to Senator McConnell, even though he is not a Senator from the state in which I reside. (You’ll notice I did not say “my Senator” or “my state” - can you guess which state that is?)
Back to the point:
Also told the Senator not to bother to reply, if all the reply will be is some bland, useless blah, blah, blah form letter from a staffer.
(I received two identical useless form letters over the summer from a Senator’s office regarding the shamnesty bill - to paraphrase: “…blah, blah, blah…complex issue…blah, blah, blahhhh…comprehensive approach…”
‘Course, a table is smart enough to know what is meant when “comprehensive” is used.
Keep on keeping on, Michelle.
morning all … be aware that this is not a recent thing … Ronald Reagan rejected it in 1982 and then in 1994 BJ Clinton tried to force a “compromise” treaty down our throats that got rejected as well … Oliver North has a pretty good article on it today that is on townhall’s website … you might want to check it out after you read Michelle’s links above … it is at the following link
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2007/10/12/permission_slip_for_the_sea
The President has acted in many mysterious ways in the past couple of years. What is it about Washington that turns a conservative into a liberal and why hasn’t it affected guys like Hunter and Tancredo?
I have to be honest…at this point it wouldn’t bother me one bit to see Bush impeached and Cheney serve the remainder of this Presidential term.
orlandocajun,
then the comfort level to Pelosi Galore is at defcon 2. yikes.
Nothing mysterious. Bush’s perspective is a global investing/business one. He has no use for the American people, whom he regards as sort of a union that needs to be busted with cheap illegal labor. A Bible thumper, his patriotism is primarily to Israel. He is devious and manipulative and isolated from the people by a layer of loyalists and sycophants. He is lazy and constantly on vacation and thus only able to address a small set of issues.
What is mysterious is why even the faux right still supports him and his phony war on terror. Any logic would tell you if he were fighting a war on terror the first step would be to close the border to infiltrators, but the faux rightists are emotional, not logical.
Here is a contact form for Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican Leader. If ratification goes to the House
MM it doesn’t matter if the UN gets this treaty……..
The Constitution Trumps Treaties!
The idea being,that no treaty, not even the UN Charter, which is a treaty, can alter or override the Constitution of the United States
Here’s some news regarding the “phony” War on Terror.
“The main goal is to take away this area from the enemy, and I think we have done that,” said Markoff, a Raleigh, N.C., native. “Our relationship with the locals is amazing. When an insurgent comes to the city and asks someone where they can put an IED, the locals will actually bring them to us, or take us to them. It’s great.”
Buccicone agreed, “We get a lot of support from the local leaders, and once that happened, certain places just got shut down to the insurgency. Now we are working with ISF and area leaders to rebuild this area, which is the next step. We are working on repairing a bridge, creating a youth center, soccer fields, and even trying to get together a secondary school for females. It’s coming together in this part of the country.”
Dulab, Iraq
The full article here:
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/2F82767F28C5CF3C8525737000462E62?opendocument
LOST. This communist wet dream has been kicking around for decades, looking for a sucker willing to sell us out. Sad that Bush sees himself as that guy.
…and how about this?
“I will never forget the American and coalition men and women … who provided the first stepping stones for us to make our country better.”
Iraqi Brig. Gen. Fadhil Jameel Jameel Barwari
Heh, this sounds rather like various EU directives regarding fishing, national waters and the like. You can expect your fishing industry to be completely gutted in thirty years if this goes ahead.
Bush once again betraying the sovereignty of America to foreign powers. Hhmmm, I’m going to buy more ammo and MREs today …
Blah blah blah, jews, blah blah blah, RonPaul, blah blah blah, phony war, blah blah blah.
Do you want Iran’s Foreign Legion, Hezbollah to be successful in toppling the only well established free democracy in the Mid East? Do you want the terrorists Hamas to “run every jew into the sea”?
Do you want the United States to abandon it’s alliance with Isreal and stop all military arms sales and aid? Do you want the United States to sever all diplomatic ties with Isreal to appease 7th century mass murdering fanatics?
Do you not support the Isreali Air Force assault against the Syrian nuclear facility? Wasn’t that convienent that we didn’t have to do that ourselves?
Should we end the cooperative relationship between our intelligence community and the Moussad?
Do you believe that what you call the “phony” war on terror will end if the United States turns on the Jews? Do you think a truce between Al Queda, Iran and the Great Satan is possible if we just stop associating ourselves with those decieving, manipulative Joooos?
Do you belive that Zionism=Racism?
A few questions to ponder about the United States’ relationship with the nation of Isreal. What are the answers, and what do they mean in the larger struggle against Islamofascism?
It won’t do a bit of good to try to wake Bush up to the danger this Treaty will cause to our sovereignty and economy. Instead I have contacted Senator Crapo again the other guy is dead to most of us in Idaho. Better to stop this cold in the Senate. Let it have the same outcome as the whacked out Kyoto Treaty.
deepdiver I think I agree with you on loading up on ammo and rations if this travesty does become the law of the land. A couple of more boxes of 5.56 mm couldn’t hurt.
As for the LOST, I think it should get LOST!
Here’s what I posted in the first thread about this last week:
Lots of questions, and not many answers from the people who are pushing this. We need to know, before we sink our own Navy.
To those saying that the US Constitution would over-rule any of this … sorry … the language in the agreement says flat out that we relinquish that by agreeing to this back-door to the Kyoto treaty and turn over complete control of the fishing, naval activities, etc., to the UN and their appointed regulatory commission … so that means Cuba, Iran, Syria, etc., could control our Navy and fishing industries … it also basically ends our freedom to conduct military exercises when and where we want … plus throw in the Kyoto crap that if there is any pollution of the oceans caused by something that happens on land as well as at sea that the country (read U.S.A.) has to accept the ruling of these U.N. assigned arbitrators making up these “commissions” … plus they can levy fines and we have to pay what in essence is taxes to the U.N. for seaborne activity … this even includes things like drilling for oil or extracting any other natural resources that may be in the ocean … do you want the U.N. telling us we can’t have naval training exercises or have planes take off from carriers or that submarines must at all times travel on the surface within certain distances from land … it’s all in there … and the list goes on and on folks …
it’s Congressional clobbering time again just like we did with the amnesty and dream act and the other things they don’t think we are paying attention to out here …
Thank you for helping shed more light on the Law of the Sea Sovereignty give away.
Why is there such a rush to sell off or give away everything we own?
Whether you ascribe to it or not, this is an interesting article.
http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_global_elite%3a_who_are_they?_200511146/
Just emailed both my (R) senators…
DL #22 you’re absolutely 100% wrong. The Constitution Trumps Treaties!
Go ask any Law Professor.
The only thing we should give the UN is the permission to enjoy our boot up its collect[ivist] wazoooo, sending it the heck to Haiti - or some other dream destination.
I doubt the deal will go through, but I’ll give DC a call anyway.
Thank you, MM, for getting this into the discussion.
xler8bmw~
How many times has Congress made a law that was unconstitutional, but it was enforced until someone challenged it and the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court? That takes a lot of time, and I’d rather not take any chances… And even then, SCOTUS doesn’t always might the correct decision (Kelo, anyone?).
Miss #27 I agree with why fight it in the first place.
I am just stating that NO treaty can supersede or alter the Constitution.
So it’s a moot point to argue if it happens.
The idea being,that no treaty, not even the UN Charter, which is a treaty, can alter or override the Constitution of the United States
Sad, but not surprising. First thing the UN can do is take away his “daddy’s” fishing license.
Ronnie Paulie types can join LOST and then get lost.
Thanks for the heads up Michelle.
I’ve used the link provided above and emailed Mitch McConnell and called the White House.
I know if enough of us respond to your clarion call we will have a positive outcome to this assault on our Constitution and sovereignty
Why is Bush assailing American Sovereignty so intensely? This is very troubling.
xler8bmw
The constitution also says “and treaties” that we enter into … and this is a treaty … therefore it’s agreements become the same as law under the constitutional view … you need to search it out and read the actual language … it does not say “can” or “may” or “should” … it says “shall” in every paragraph … by definition that is a non-negotiable position which you have agreed to and will abide by …
I’m more aligned with DesertLover #33 above. The closest we’ll come to the noxious idea of a “Living Constitution” is for UN-loving Senators to start ratifying treaties designed to hamstring the United States.
Recent history is repeating itself, in a weird way: in January of 1993, Bill Clinton inherited a three-way lock on the Federal government and an ascendant Democratic party. In January of 2001, he left his party in such disarray that by 2003 it was the Republicans who had the three-way lock.
Bush is doing the same thing. By fracturing the Republicans over things like illegal immigration and other forms of foreign interference in American sovereignty, he’s already helped to turn Congress back over to the Democrats and evidently won’t be satisfied until another Clinton inherits a three-way lock in January, 2009.
Whoever said that those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it was on to something…
#34 you can be aligned with DL but your both incorrect. Again I say go speak with a Law Professor who specializes in Constitutional Law.
Just because our government might not always follow the Constitution as it was written, doesn’t take away the fact of what it’s interpretation is and what the Supreme Court must uphold.
DL again you’re incorrect the Constitution Trumps Treaties especially land. I suggest you go read up on it I’ve been through Constitutional Law class already.
Article VI, clause 2 declares that “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, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” It is the last clause that is misunderstood, even by attorneys. “… Constitution or Laws of any State …” refers to the Constitutions of the several states, NOT the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers were much too well informed to allow the state Constitutions to alter the United States Constitution. That would have been self defeating. The truth of the matter is that neither treaties nor state laws can supersede or alter the Constitution of the United States. Our national document is etched in stone. It is unfortunate that most Congress Persons do not read stone.
If you would like some cases I would be glad to provide.
“A pessimist is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.” (famous saying)
There must be some value in the Law of the Sea treaty of the entire US foreign policy establishment would not be for it. We sign a treaty, we get some things and give others. That’s business.
xler8bmw said:
I was just gettting ready to post Article VI myself … thanks … emphasis is mine in the quote …
The conflict is not in the States references in the last clause … it is the fact that the portion you just quoted is what I stated … US treaties become the law of the land …
The way the LOST (and it is lengthy) is written any dispute goes to binding arbitration by an international tribunal whose members are selected by the UN and by signing on to it that means we are agreeing to abide by the results of that international arbitration …
Reagan told them what to do with this thing 25 years ago … Bubba tried to get around that in ‘94 and failed … now they are trying again …
by the viewpoint you are presenting there would be no treaties with anyone because they would not be worth the paper they were written and signed on … so why enter into a treaty to begin with if one side is not going to abide by it? …
All due respect to law professors and Constitutional Law classes … I am not a lawyer (thankfully) … just some good old fashioned common sense application as I see it …
Also … tell the citizens that lost their long time family owned property in the Kelo decision in New London in a clear violation and abuse of the Right of Eminent Domain that the courts will always uphold their rights under the Constitution …
DL you obviously didn’t read the rest of what I posted……Let give it to you again. Your interpretation is incorrect.
It is the last clause that is misunderstood, even by attorneys. “… Constitution or Laws of any State …” refers to the Constitutions of the several states, NOT the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers were much too well informed to allow the state Constitutions to alter the United States Constitution. That would have been self defeating. The truth of the matter is that neither treaties nor state laws can supersede or alter the Constitution of the United States. Our national document is etched in stone. It is unfortunate that most Congress Persons do not read stone.
unfortunately I have to head to the ballpark … but what you are pointing out is that this article is talking about 2 separate things …
1 - the constitution overrides state constitutions and that judges are bound by the US constitution over a state constitution of law … that’s the part you keep referring to as “misunderstood even by lawyers” … that’s very clear to me and I don’t see where the confusion is in the first place …
2 - it is in the first part that you are ignoring the fact that
this is the portion that would be the problem with the LOST treaty …
this is a treaty from the federal government … not a treaty from any one or group of states …
take care … enjoyed the debate …
We will agree to disagree. Enjoy the game.