|
Uhh, Americans and Canadians, what the hell is this? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
I guess the American military is so stretched by foreign adventures, they need the Canadian military to pick up some slack...
I mean, they've depleted the National Guard so much, Canada is will now be our National Guard...O Canada O Canada!!! |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
valiant effort, but a huge misstatement of US law.
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
You see this come to blows when the US enters a treaty such as in the UN, but fails to domestically ratify it. What this means is that while the treaty can be enforced internationally "legally" as a bilateral treaty - not as if the US actually adheres to WorldCourt hearings anyway.. - it would not be in the realm of domestic law.
|
US bilateral treaties do not become effective, by their terms, until they have been ratified by the senate.
Article 2, section 2 of the US constitution states, "He [the president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Congress exists to allocate funds not per se make law in general - however they do have the capacity to suggest law, the president is required to agree to those laws - the president in times of emergency however can for the most part suspend the constitution and civil law process. Technically the president only needs 3 senators for law making, and does not require congress for making executive orders or as supreme commander in cheif exercising military rule.
Of course there is more to it.
This link may help you better understand
http://www.llrx.com/features/ustreaty.htm |
this statement is riddled with inaccuracies. read article 1 of the US constitution.
section 1 of article 1 states, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
section 8 provides the general legistlative powers of the congress. the constitution enumerates many powers, however, the most important are: (1) lay and collect taxes, and (2) to regulate commerce (most federal laws are enacted under this power - called the commerce clause). with respect to the enumerated powers, section 8 provides that congress has the power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers..."
with respect to martial law, at not time can the president 'suspend' the constitution. the president must always act in compliance with the constitution. when people refer to martial law in the US, they are talking about suspending habeas corpus. that does not mean the president can trample over the constitution without consequence. furthermore, the federal military most likely needs congressional consent for domestic activities. the issue isn't entirely clear (i'm not an expert on this area, but my preliminary research shows that the MCA of 2006 may have expanded the presidents power in this respect - but remember, congress gave the president these powers, which it is entitled to do).
you have also mis-characterized the power of executive orders. an executive order may not create law. the supreme court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that an executive order can not make law, but must clarify or be in furtherance of a law enacted by congress (or part of the constitution). |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| Looks like they're expecting something, eh? |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I think you read fine. It's your comprehension that seems to be lacking but you can always work on that. |
You'll catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.
Bees love long walks on the beach, geometry, and chemistry, and they love to dance. Don't be fooled, they will always surprise you! |
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Looks like they're expecting something, eh? |
Yeah, as if the American people were to ever rebel against the government, they can now bring Canadian troops in to quell the riots. I don't see how this is legal at all. Both Canadians and Americans should be worried about this new "treaty." |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
Yeah, as if the American people were to ever rebel against the government, they can now bring Canadian troops in to quell the riots. I don't see how this is legal at all. Both Canadians and Americans should be worried about this new "treaty." |
What's to worry about? We've been doing this pretty much already for decades.
All they essentially did was take away some red tape and everyone now decides it's too much?? :conf:
The only thing in question here is Opus's question of how exactly they did this. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
As stated previously the US has two forms of treaty one called executive agreements and the other called treaty. If the executive agrees to a military proposal then the signing party and that authority is bound to it in international law regardless of what the USSC has to say about it, it is a matter of international law not US law.
You can quote well but you need to read more, 2/3rds .. all that is required is 3 senators.
Also executive orders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execut...nited_States%29
While you may have knoweldge for sure you don't know the "neat little tricks
RE martial law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
You see the President is Supreme Commander of Cheif of the US military.. so effectively it renders him to defend the constitution - while some see this materially others feel is meant to be their interpretation, while others beleive the legal perspective
section 1 of article 1 states, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Ok, to collect taxes -- AND regulate commerce.... (but oddly congress has passed off tax collection to a corporation - and has also granted a corporation the capacity to mint us money? Odd no?
Although congress still has the right to mint real US currency rather than Federal Reserve Bills.
I disagree, there are matters of national security, as well as the presidents presidential oath of office.
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
However still presidents have allowed ammendements to occur and added....
The president exists to Exercise the best interest of the United States and as a human is bound to uphold the values of human decency.
Sort of - congress can move to impeach the president if they don't think they are doing well.
This is not true.
===
Do note the office of president AND the constitution both existed BEFORE the USCC or any federal police agencies. Likewise the US military existed before the US. |
i don't even know if i can respond to you anymore. your posts are highly inaccurate and would take me an hour to just point out those inaccuracies. you have a warped idea of the operations of the US government and a faulty understanding of US constitutional law. however, i will quickly address the following:
1 - You can quote well but you need to read more, 2/3rds .. all that is required is 3 senators. - this statement is simply stupid. 2/3 of 100 is 67, not 3.
2 - Ok, to collect taxes -- AND regulate commerce.... (but oddly congress has passed off tax collection to a corporation - and has also granted a corporation the capacity to mint us money? Odd no? - actually, congress gives away much of its power to agencies. this is nothing unusual, and as quickly as congress gives power away, congress can take that power back.
3 - As stated previously the US has two forms of treaty one called executive agreements and the other called treaty. - first off, it is a matter of US law. the highest law in the US is US law not international law. the only binding international law is law that we accept. we don't care what other countries consider a treaty. if we don't accept an executive agreement as a treaty then it is not a treaty. for US purposes, an executive agreement is not a treaty. a treaty creates law that has the same authority as a united states statute. it can be created without any authority to act in that area of law. conversely, an executive agreement can only be made under an already existing power. for instance, an executive agreement can not be made for the president to regulate commerce because he does not have that power. the president, however, may enter an agreement regarding foreign policy. so, because the president already has that power it is nothing unusual or inappropriate if he enters into an agreement pursuant to that power.
the main consequence of being an executive agreement instead of a treaty is that an executive treaty can be struck down as unconstitutional the president overstepped his powers. however, as long as the formalities of entering a treaty are recognized, no court can overturn a treaty.
i deal with treaties everyday at my job, i know how this works. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
OF THOSE IN ATTENDANCE. WHERE THREE IS THE MINIMUM TO CONSTITUTE A QUORUM FOR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE
The federal reserve is not a US agency nor are the banks that run it fully US, as the Bank of England and other foreign banks are majority holders of the stock of the Reserve. Although vault locations are within the US. The Tresury Department interacts with the reserve but it is founded on a NOW VOIDED contract
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm
Read about the reserve history and you will realize it is functioning on a voided contract.
The president is the highest legal authority in the US due to his requirement to oversee the constitution.
Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
The President may issue executive orders in perogative of Law which delegate the president into entering executive agreements. Any executive agreement so rendered would be equal in force as a 'treaty' entered into with consent of congress. Thus the President has full executive capacity to enter into treaty through Foreign Affairs allowance which already exist in law.
You are inaccurate. |
seriously kid, im a lawyer, and you have absolutely no idea about the force of laws. an executive agreement is not equivalent to a treaty. a treaty is specifically permitted by the constitution and can expand our laws, and an executive agreement is something the presidency created, and can only be pursuant to a power already granted.
a quorum in the senate is 51 senators, which means at a minimum 34 senators have to approve it. but things don't work that way, senators show up to important votes, or they don't show up to avoid a vote.
the federal reserve does not operate under a contract. rather, it receives its primary power to act pursuant to the federal reserve act of 1913. setting up the federal reserve is no different than congress giving any other agency power. the federal reserve must always act in compliance with federal law that gives it power.
what are you talking about the president overseas the constitution? every significant government employee takes an oath to uphold the constitution. the supreme court is actually the most powerful head of any branch because it has the power to overturn laws and order other branches to cease activities. the supreme court has the final say over everyting. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
I've also studied law and have self represented myself in court on numerous occasions. How long have you been practicing, where, and what law school did you go to?
You clearly do not understand executive authority. You seem to grasp simple contract but not parallel contracts of the full scope of US law in existance - nor it's origins.
WRONG - A QUORUM IS ANY SESSION WHERE THERE IS PROCESSION OF BUSINESS AND THREE MUST BE PRESENT WHILE THE PRESIDENT SIGNS BUSINESS INTO LAW.
THAT IS A CALL TO QUORUM MUST OCCUR OR IT IS ASSUMED QUORUM EXISTS.
You do not know the federal reserve as it was originally brought into force. But you are right technically the reserve should operate according to US law. But it is not a federal agency, the system itself does act as an agent but Federal Reserve members and banks ARE NOT US AGENTS IN EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, NOR IS THE CHAIRMAN DIRECTLY RESPOINSIBLE TO THE US GOVERNMENT AT LAW OF IT'S FOUNDING. The federal reserve is considered INDEPENDANT but it is a Private Collective of Banks that are required to partake due to Federal Law. They organize their system and distrobution as per Federal Law, they issue currency as required ON REQUEST of the US Tresury.. BUT they are in no way a regular US Agency they are an INDEPENDANT BODY MANADATED TO SERVE SPECIFIC GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS TO THE US GOVERNMENT BUT NOT FOR THE US GOVERNMENT. THEY ACT FOR THEIR MEMBER BANKS INTEREST.
The President has Supreme Command of the Military - he has the supreme legal authoirty through exercise of law - even in martial situation - including bringing into force those members of the Judiciary who oppose the constitution. The Judicary only renders opinions, it does not make law as it is not Legislative, Nor is it Executive. It is the Wise and Learned Judiciary.
They can issue warrants... but martial law is above the court, especially in instances of National Security. Although the President is still accountable by the Congress and Impeachment they are not limited by the Congress in execise of their duties. They may utilize the full extent of existing law in governance - even where it contradicts the law if it is to uphold a Superior Law which includes Executive Agreements that are rendered supreme by they being exercised in force by PREXISTING LAW. |
i'm not responding to the rest anymore, but NYU law school, 2 years. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
/waiting for the my dad can beat up your dad... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
You'll catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.
Bees love long walks on the beach, geometry, and chemistry, and they love to dance. Don't be fooled, they will always surprise you! |
When those killer bees have already been stinging me I've always had a tendency to bring out a flamethrower in order to simply just incinerate their vicious little asses.
I'm far from perfect and although I might not be the best spokesperson for the cause, I seem to be one of the few who cares about or is even aware of what's actually going on.
I'm working on it but sometimes I still struggle.
Thanks, though :) I'm always happy to accept constructive criticism. |
|
|
|
|
