Comments on: More on the meddling Law of the Sea Treaty http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/ news and commentary from a conservative perspective Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:07:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty « Aeneian Shores http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-293332 Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty « Aeneian Shores Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:47:41 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-293332 [...] And an interesting post from Michelle Malkin [...] [...] And an interesting post from Michelle Malkin [...]

]]> By: Michelle Malkin » The vote on LOST: American sovereignty on the line http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-159918 Michelle Malkin » The vote on LOST: American sovereignty on the line Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:33:56 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-159918 [...] the past several weeks, I’ve blogged about the Law of the Sea Treaty. The vote on this sovereignty-undermining deal takes place at [...] [...] the past several weeks, I’ve blogged about the Law of the Sea Treaty. The vote on this sovereignty-undermining deal takes place at [...]

]]> By: Tel-Chai Nation http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-149831 Tel-Chai Nation Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:48:38 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-149831 <strong>Dubya turns against the state he governed, by tryi...</strong> Dubya continues to be a disgrace in his second presidential term by trying to intervene in the case of Jose Medillin, who raped and murdered two teenage girls in Texas and is now facing the death sentence (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin):... Dubya turns against the state he governed, by tryi…

Dubya continues to be a disgrace in his second presidential term by trying to intervene in the case of Jose Medillin, who raped and murdered two teenage girls in Texas and is now facing the death sentence (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin):…

]]> By: Michelle Malkin » George W. Bush: Crusader for Mexican death row murderers and international law meddlers, continued http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145986 Michelle Malkin » George W. Bush: Crusader for Mexican death row murderers and international law meddlers, continued Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:55:07 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145986 [...] Schlafly connects the dots between the Medellin case and the Law of the Sea Treaty: Just this week, the United States Supreme Court gave us an important look into what kind of global [...] [...] Schlafly connects the dots between the Medellin case and the Law of the Sea Treaty: Just this week, the United States Supreme Court gave us an important look into what kind of global [...]

]]> By: Giving It All Away! » Freedom Folks http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145825 Giving It All Away! » Freedom Folks Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:01:33 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145825 [...] Source: Spectator.org H/T Malkin [...] [...] Source: Spectator.org H/T Malkin [...]

]]> By: xler8bmw http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145215 xler8bmw Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:10:53 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145215 We will agree to disagree. Enjoy the game. We will agree to disagree. Enjoy the game.

]]> By: DesertLover http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145207 DesertLover Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:48:35 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145207 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 <blockquote>Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land;</blockquote> 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 ... 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

Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land;

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 …

]]> By: xler8bmw http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145203 xler8bmw Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:38:38 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145203 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. 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.

]]> By: DesertLover http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145195 DesertLover Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:26:25 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145195 xler8bmw said: <blockquote>and all <em>Treaties</em> made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, <em>shall be the supreme law of the Land</em>;</blockquote> 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 ... <em>US treaties become the law of the land</em> ... 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 ... xler8bmw said:

and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land;

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 …

]]> By: lgm http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145190 lgm Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:18:29 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145190 "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. “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.

]]> By: xler8bmw http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145186 xler8bmw Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:04:57 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145186 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. 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.

]]> By: xler8bmw http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145182 xler8bmw Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:00:20 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145182 #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. #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.

]]> By: Regulus http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145155 Regulus Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:10:44 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145155 <blockquote>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</blockquote> 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...

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

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…

]]> By: That Just Seems Really Stupid « Tai-Chi Policy http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145144 That Just Seems Really Stupid « Tai-Chi Policy Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:55:15 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145144 [...] and the travel of our subs, subject to approval and taxation of a U.N. body set up for the purpose. Michelle Malkin has more, as well as some useful reminder links of who to contact about your support or lack [...] [...] and the travel of our subs, subject to approval and taxation of a U.N. body set up for the purpose. Michelle Malkin has more, as well as some useful reminder links of who to contact about your support or lack [...]

]]> By: DesertLover http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-145139 DesertLover Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:50:14 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/#comment-145139 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 ... 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 …

]]>