The on-line links to the following articles can be found in the "issues archive" of our

Federal Issues Committee website [ http://www.indeedfree.com/fic/issues/archive.html ]

and also at the Federal Issues Committee webpage of IndianaArmstrongPatriots.com

By Dick Morris Feb 9, 2012

Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification.

• International Criminal Court -- Clinton has reversed George W. Bush's policy and entered into negotiations over U.S. participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of "aggression," which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court's jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Clinton says she will stop our military's hands from being tied, but we all must realize that once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system.

• The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration -- with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) -- will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar's primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free.

• Small-arms control — Clinton is about to negotiate on a global ban on export of small arms. It would only apply to private citizens but, of course, most small-arms deals come not from individuals or private firms but from governments, specifically those of the United States, Russia, China and Israel. The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired. The Second Amendment be damned!

• Outer Space Code of Conduct -- Under the guise of stopping debris from accumulating in outer space, the European Union has enlisted Clinton in negotiations over a code of conduct. The code would prohibit activities that are likely to generate debris in outer space -- space littering. The code might inhibit or prohibit the United States from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats. European leftists reacted angrily when G.W. Bush opted out of the ABM treaty banning defensive weapons. Now they seek to reimpose it under the guise of a code of conduct.

• Rights of the Child -- Even more fanciful is a treaty Clinton plans to negotiate setting forth a code of rights for children, to be administered by a 14-member court set up for the purpose. The draft treaty obliges rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations. This provision could create grounds to litigate to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations. Already, leftists in the United Kingdom are using the treaty to attack welfare cuts by the Cameron government.

European liberalism is advancing -- masked -- by way of these treaties. Defenders of liberty must say no!

The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".

HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems … the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.

The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED.

Now we must let our elected "representatives" in Washington and the State legislatures know that we no longer believe the BIG LIE... we know that we are not bound by unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other such treasonous acts.

By Michelle Malkin May 25, 2012

What’s green and blue and grabby all over? President Obama’s new pressure campaign for Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

The fight over LOST goes back three decades, when it was first rejected by President Ronald Reagan. He warned that "no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World." According to top Reagan officials William Clark and Ed Meese, their boss believed the treaty’s "central, and abiding, defect" was "its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states -- and most especially the United States."

The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries, impose environmental regulations, and restrict business on the high seas. They’ve tinkered with the document obsessively since the late Sixties, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited soon-to-depart GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to their crusade. Ignore the mushy save-the-planet rhetoric. Here’s the bottom line: Crucial national-security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China, and Russia.

While our sovereignty would be redistributed around the world, most of the funding for the massive LOST regulatory body would come from -- you guessed it! -- the United States. Forbes columnist Larry Bell reports that "as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast" would be meted out to "poorer, landlocked countries." This confiscatory act of environmental justice would siphon billions, if not trillions, away from Americans. International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes. There would be no opportunity for court appeals in the United States.

LOST is just the latest waterlogged power grab by the Obama administration. As I reported in 2010, the White House, through executive order, seized unprecedented control from states and localities over "conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes." Obama created a 27-member "National Ocean Council" by administrative fiat; the council is specifically tasked with implementing ocean-management plans "in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention."

The panel is chaired by radical-green science czar John Holdren (notorious for his cheerful musings about eugenics, mass sterilization, and forced abortions to protect Mother Earth, and for hyping weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population-control pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich) and White House Council on Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley (best known as the immediate boss of disgraced green-jobs czar and avowed Communist Van Jones).

Other members include Dr. Jane Lubchenco -- head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund, which has long championed draconian reductions of commercial fishing fleets and recreational fishing activity in favor of centralized control -- and fraudster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who doctored the administration’s drilling-moratorium report.

It is not hyperbole to expose LOST’s socialist roots. Meddling Marxist Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the godmother of the global ocean regulatory scheme, made no bones about it: "He who rules the sea," she exulted, "rules the land." LOST is a radical giveaway of American sovereignty in the name of environmental protection. And it should be sunk once and for all.

May 18, 2012

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Ray,

Thank you for contacting me about Senate ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, the Constitution requires a two-thirds affirmative vote of the Senate for treaty ratification. The ratification process is an important responsibility, and I take it seriously and value your input about the Convention on the Law of the Sea. With that being said, I am concerned about the possible impact of this proposed treaty on our national sovereignty. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind should the Senate undertake the ratification process for the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey

U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

By Sara Noble May 23, 2012

Yesterday, two congressmen, Rep. Denny Rehberg and Rep. Ben Quayle introduced HR 5846, The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act to counter the threat of the Small Arms Treaty which is being pushed by the Obama administration and which is aimed at regulating small arms worldwide.

The treaty, if ratified by 2/3 rds of the Senate, would require the United States to conform to international standards. It is probably not going to pass prior to the election although some wonder if this administration would try to push it through in a lame duck session.

The left mocks anyone who is concerned that the treaty will limit the second amendment, claiming that the Constitution will prevent that. The reality is that this treaty would have the force of a constitutional amendment and would mandate conformity to international law by chipping away at the second amendment.

Every country that signs the treaty would be required to submit a report to this unit listing all activities that conform to their objectives. It also requires signers to set up their own agencies to track guns for export. The wording is very vague and broad. It would likely lead to the registration of all American-made guns.

There is no question the U.N. is opposed to small arms, period. Kofi Anan claims he is not trying to take small arms from nations who permit them but rather, his goal is to eliminate the illegal gun trade. That is a sham because the United States is not the cause of this trade – it is the communist nations that are dealing. The U.N. has waged a decades-long war against our second amendment.

A more immediate threat than the treaty is looming. The U.N. is pushing for International Standards of Small Arms which would operate irrespective of the treaty. It is supported by the anti-gun crowd in the United States – the Brady bunch for one.

Their goal, according to their site is -

ISACS  wants  nations to control -

• the manufacture of small arms
• control the access of citizens to small arms
• manage the storage and destruction of weapons and ammunition
• place controls on gun owners and how they use the guns
• participate in international tribunals for criminal offenses and investigations (they get to decide what qualifies as criminal offenses)

How would the second amendment survive this intact? When the left claims this and the treaty are not a threat, just think about the lengths they went to to get Obamacare passed when Scott Brown was elected. The treaty and ISACS are end-runs around the second amendment.