International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Putin's Letter To The American People
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o ... from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0
Published: Sep 11, 2013
Author: Vladamir V. Putin
Post Date: 2013-09-11 22:24:46 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 24965
Comments: 42
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
I agree with much of what he says here. I don't agree that we need UN approval to declare war. Our congress does that.
Putin b!tch slaps HUSSEIN again. HUSSEIN's ego has got to be pretty bruised by now. HUSSEIN should really crawl into a corner somewhere and just rot.
BENGHAZI - NEVER FORGET.
The UN Charter does not say that. A nation can declare war, or make war if it is attacked, with no declaration and with no permission needed from the UN to act in self-defence. Using force against a member state that has not attacked the U.S. is an act of aggression. Being the aggressor, throwing the first punch, violates international law. UN Charter 2-4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." UN Charter 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." G.A. Res. 3314, U.N. GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 31, at 142, U.N. Doc. A/9631 (1974) Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.... Article 2 The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity. Article 3 Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provision of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof; (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State; (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State; (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein. Article 4 The acts enumerated above are not exhaustive and the Security Council may determine that other acts constitute aggression under the provisions of the Charter. Article 5 1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression. 2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility. 3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
Our constitution doesn't recognize international law. We can have treaties with individual nations. But it doesn't have the authority under the "limited" powers that you mentioned elsewhere to join an organization that usurps the states rights. The constitution clearly gives the congress the right to declare war. Even if we are the aggressors and wrong. The UN wasn't even presented as a treaty.
Oh. Also. The UN should be burned to the ground. It serves no useful American purpose. It violates states rights.
The Declaration of Independence also trumps the constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of any place and never has been. The Constitution is the organic law of the United States and trumps everything in conflict with it within the jurisdiction of the U.S.
The Declaration trumps the constitution. The people have unalienable rights. That is as American as it gets. If not then the United States doesn't exist and we are still a British Colony. Natural law trumps written man made law. It is just common sense. It is self evident to Americans. As Thomas Jefferson said. The constitution does trump the UN though. God also trumps the constitution. Even to the foolish unbelievers who are willingly ignorant of that fact. Canning my tomatoes tonight trumps this site. I have quite a harvest. But not much help canning the harvest. To much rot.
The states trump the constitution. They created it. Kind of like the parable in the Bible where the ruler left his house and left his servants in charge. Then he returned and and they thought they were the master. Paraphrased.
Does the Supreme court trump the constitution? It doesn't lawfully. But in practice if you are honest it does.
Actually, it does by specific reference at Article I, Section 8, Clause 10: "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations." Black's Law Dictionary, 6 Ed. defines Law of Nation with "See International Law." Law of Nations is the archaic term and is interchangeable with the modern term. International Law. Yes. The does not usurp our authority. Accepting UN definitions is voluntary. If we wish to leave the UN, nothing is stopping us. The president has taken the nation to war or, to use the modern effective term, armed conflict, with and without a declaration of war or congressional or UN consent. In cases where we are the aggressor, the UN can and has passed a resolution condemn the United States for its action as the aggressor nation. A specific example would be the invasion of Grenada. The treaty to establish the UN was ratified by the Senate 89-2 and signed by President Truman. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cun/cun.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40299.html By Andrew Glass | 7/28/10 4:37 AM EDT On this day in 1945, as World War II drew to a close, the Senate ratified the United Nations Charter by 89-2. Its approval signaled a sea change in U.S. involvement in world affairs. In 1919, following World War I, President Woodrow Wilson had sought Senate approval of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the charter that Wilson envisioned and largely fashioned. However, to Wilson’s disappointment, growing isolationism and partisan politics killed chances of U.S. participation in the league. President Harry S. Truman voiced delight with the Senate’s U.N. vote. “The action of the Senate,” Truman said, “substantially advances the cause of world peace.” Joseph Grew, acting secretary of state, also lauded the Senate’s action, noting that “millions of men, women and children have died because nations took to the naked sword instead of the conference table to settle their differences.” Fifty of the original 51 U.N. member nations had signed the treaty at the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center on June 26. Poland, the remaining original member, was not represented, a harbinger of the Cold War. (The Poles signed later.) The treaty came into force on Oct. 24, 1945, after being ratified by the then five permanent members of the Security Council: Britain, the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union and the United States.
You have me there. I should have said it doesn't recognize the UN. There is no constitutional authority for states to lose their say.
It violates the states constitutions. It violates article V I believe it is. The states didn't have lawful senators when the UN was "ratified". So the States lost their suffrage.
You are a good debater. I will give you that. But the "amendment" that gave us direct election of Senators is unconstitutional. It violates article V. The states have a right to vote. They didn't.
Thanks for reminding me that it was Truman who did this bullshit to us.
The States, as sovereign members of an existing union, created the Constitution as the organic law for that union, and voluntarily submitted to its terms. No State, as a member of the union, is superior to the Constitution. The States may change or scrap the Constitution or the union. The people delegated powers, not their sovereignty, to the Federal or State governments. States is term with more than one meaning and the Framers knew which they meant by context. The States, i.e. State governments, did not create the Constitution. The people, acting as political communities known as states, ratified the Constitution through conventions with their delegates chosen for that purpose. What was essentially done with adoption of the Constitution was to dissolve the union of 13 states and form a new union of 11 states. George Washington was in office, under the Constitution, more than six months before North Carolina ratified, and more than a year before Rhode Island ratified. Article VII provided "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
All of these official documents were obtained in person in Washington, DC, from the National Archives. I was accompanied by two dear friends, Dane vonBreichenruchardt, President, Bill of Rights Foundation, Washington, DC, and my other friend who wishes to remain anonymous. He is considered a 'master' researcher because of his experience doing research at the National Archives. I am truly grateful for their help in gathering these documents and to the sponsors of my trip. http://www.archive.org/stream/constitutionjeff014670mbp/constitutionjeff014670mbp_djvu.txt "Question has arisen as to the power of a State to recall its assent to a constitutional amendment (V. 7042)." Since several states were out of session at the time of the vote, have they been deprived of equal Suffrage in the U.S. Senate because they did not participate in the ratification of this amendment? Is fraud (non ratification) enough to allow a state to declare it null and void in their state? Department of State — Office of the Solicitor — Memorandum List of Errors in Resolutions of State Legislatures * No conflict of interest there! "It is believed that this meets fully the requirement with reference to receipt of "official notice" contained in Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States (quoted supra page 2) and that Minnesota should therefore be numbered with the States ratifying the amendment." This will come into play regarding the legal research courtesy of constitutional Attorney Larry Becraft below. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Page 12: AMENDMENT [XVII.] 9 House, 48 Cong. Rec. (62d Cong., 2d Sess.) 6367, having previously passed the Senate on June 12, 1911. 47 Cong. Rec. (62d Cong., 1st Sess.) 1925. It appears officially in 37 Stat. 646. Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913, when the thirty—sixth State (Connecticut) approved the amendment, there being then 48 States in the Union. On May 31, 1913, Secretary of State Bryan certified that it had become a part of the Constitution. 38 Stat 2049. The amendment was declared ratified on April 8, 1913 Click here to read SHORT EXPOSITION RE LAW OF RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS on Larry's web site. This is a lengthy and somewhat complicated document. HOWEVER, we must understand all the legal minefields and court rulings from the past. That legal research will be invaluable for state legislators and their legal staff. Besides the fact this proves there was no conformity to the language for passage, note the date: May 3, 1913. According to the official documents, pg 43, Wisconsin's legislature ratified on May 9, 1913 — six days later. Wait! In the Benson documents is a letter dated May 5, 1913, from Governor Francis McGovern which states he acknowledges Moore's letter and the error in ratification (meaning it was no good). McGovern states he is transmitting copies of Moore's letter to the both branches of his legislature. (Please understand the file above is 68.76MB. That means it takes a few minutes to load, even with DSL. It takes longer on my system (and I have high speed) to load in FireFox than Explorer. It will also load in Netscape, but takes about five full minutes. I just want you to know it is there, it just takes some time to load such a huge file.) Update - Janaury 16, 2012 - 36 States Did Not Ratify 17th Amendment - What Will States Do? Three horrendous things happened in 1913 and yes, it was a conspiracy. The income tax amendment was critical. It was needed to feed the privately owned consortium of banks called the FED. The Seventeenth Amendment was critical to remove the right of the states of the Union to equal representation in the U.S. Senate. Henceforth, those seats were up for the highest bidder. Supporting documentation and publications: The Lunatic Left Is Getting Desperate http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo183.html On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. Below is an excerpt; the full text is here. "Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. "This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it. "Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. "These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. "In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, if not the accomplice, of the European bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this Country and who in 1912 has spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose. "We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm—eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank" to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave." Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies distributed. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
Can you document that this is incorrect?
The people delegated the authority to declare war to the Legislature. It is not an authority reserved by the people to themselves or the States. We recognize international law and the UN but remain a sovereign nation. We can disobey without significant consequence, as can the other permanent members of the Security Council who can veto any measure they do not like. There is no way for the UN to pass a Security Council resolution to take action against the U.S. over our veto.
I think you are referring to election of U.S. Senators by the State legislatures being replaced by direct vote. That was accomplished by constitutional amendment 17 in 1913. One may question the wisdom of it, but I don't see how it is unlawful.
Over the past decade and a half, I've heard the stonewalling and excuses about changes to the amendment made by states: punctuation and actual word changes not mattering. Wrong. More than a decade ago, Constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, who has more than 35 years experience fighting in federal courts and giving the IRS some of it's worst bloody noses, filed a lawsuit in the State of Oklahoma over the non ratification of the 16th Amendment; known as the federal income tax amendment. He writes: The legal necessity for concurrence in legislative acts. “Philander Knox was Secretary of State back in 1913 and was by law the public official to whom the States which allegedly ratified this amendment were to send their notices of ratification. When enough of these documents were received by Knox, he commenced a review of them and drafted a report dated February 15, 1913. Therein, Knox noted that "under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment." But having said this, Knox went on in the same report and noted all the various changes that the states had made to the amendment. “This proposition that state legislatures cannot alter or change a proposed constitutional amendment is derived from an establish legal principle which requires that legislative bodies, when considering any given legislative act, must agree to the exact same wording and punctuation of that proposed law. This legislative principle was discussed in a booklet titled How Our Laws Are Made, Document Number 97-120, 97th Congress, First Session, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr., Law Revision Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives: "Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling clerk. "When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies– either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both houses to the conference report– a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President. "The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by way of deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk.... must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President.... each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken." Of course, our lawsuit was kicked to the curb by the court and we didn't have enough money (The Wallace Institute) to take it to a higher court. I doubt it would have succeeded because most judges are simply gutless without an ounce of integrity. I want you to go look at this case: Sullivan vs. U.S., et al. A 2003 case which clearly demonstrates federal judges are too cowardly to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and should be thrown off the bench by Congress. While that case dealt with war and the Monroe Doctrine, read the actual words of Judge James C. Cox, beginning on page 23: “..you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment (16th)”. And, "I think I'm correct in saying that actually the ratification never occurred." According to that judge, it's okay fraud sends Americans to prison. That federal judge spontaneously brought up the Sixteenth Amendment (federal income tax) and clearly stated what Bill Benson proved in his research and went to prison for: it was not properly ratified. How many hundreds, if not thousands are rotting in federal prisons because of a law that does not exist? One too many while the American people dutifully lay bare their personal lives to the IRS in the hope they avoid an audit. As for the Seventeenth, this needs to be considered: Can a constitutional amendment be constitutional if it amends the Constitution by a back door method? Full text of "Constitution Jefferson's Manual And Rules Of the House Of Representatives Of The United States Eighty Seventh Congress" "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose, Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." For those states who voted not to ratify or those who were out of session at the time and didn't vote – the Seventeenth Amendment clearly does as they did not give their consent to be deprived equal suffrage in the Senate. I don't think people can appreciate the battle that went on during the first Contential Congress until they read Max Ferrand's historical work, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. It's free on the Internet, but I have the three volume soft copy set (1800 pages). It is a remarkable walk through history. The Seventeenth Amendment clearly violates Article V for the following states who did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment: Utah (explicitly rejected amendment); Alabama; Florida; Georgia (refused to vote on it); Kentucky; Maryland; Mississippi; Rhode Island; South Carolina; Virginia. I went to the National Archives in Washington, DC and retrieved the proof that amendment was not ratified. Dozens of states made changes to the text in one form or another. All documents can be viewed and printed here. Long ago I focused on this letter given to me in the mid-1990s by an individual with impeccable credentials. As you can see, it is a letter from the the archivist at the Secretary of State's office stating: "There was no debate or voting record listed in the California State Senate or Assembly Journals". On what? The ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. It is alleged California voted to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment on January 28, 1913. Next, please look at this journal page I personally retrieved from the California State Archives. 1913. See item 7 regarding the constitutional amendment to elect U.S. Senators: May 20, 1913: From Committee. Without Recommendation. How could it go from committee without recommendation on May 20th if it was allegedly voted on five months earlier? It wasn't. Over the years, the folks at the California State Archives have been so kind and helpful in my research. This past summer I drove 100 miles to Angelo State U, the closest repository of old records and went through their microfilm. That promoted me to again contact California to request court certified copies of the journal records for 1913. Guess what? They're all on the Internet now and what do those official records from California show for January 28, 1913? There was no vote that day or any other for the Seventeenth Amendment. I had my web master down load everything and also put it on a CD, which I sent to the state reps and senators listed below. I did it to protect the truth, i.e., a journal page which looks authentic suddenly appears with the proper vote. I knew there was no vote back in 2000 because I went to the California State Archives (15 minutes from my home then) and asked for a search. I went back the next day and was informed by the head archivist no such vote was found. The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Sixteenth) was clearly not ratified by enough states. There is also another problem. I tried to obtain an investigation from the State of Georgia, but they don't do mail requests anymore because of budget cuts. I was going to ask Rep. Bobby Franklin to help me, but God, rest his soul, that fine man died unexpectedly on July 26, 2011, from heart disease; I was so shocked. What did I want Bobby to help me with? The State of George did not vote on that amendment. Their governor at the time commissioned an investigation: Congress did not properly adopt the amendment before it was even sent to the states. I printed out everything I could find at Angelo U of the bickering between congress critters at the time and the amendments, but I wish I had a copy of that investigation. State reps and senators can probably get a copy because they are elected officials. The bottom line is this: We are being destroyed from within. The top issues in this country crushing us are Agenda 21, the unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve and the federal income tax. Our major job sectors gutted because of vile treaties like NAFTA pushed through by then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Obamacare and endless new regulations coming out of alphabet soup agencies that are unconstitutional, killing the states and employers. The states have no representation in Congress; they are little more than doormats. The states must stand up and fight back as those representatives were going to in New Hampshire with H.R. 1126 or allow the federal machine to crush them and all of us. That isn't going to happen until one state takes the first step in challenging the non ratification of that amendment. It may be okay with the federal judge in the Sullivan case that people are rotting in prison for an amendment that wasn't ratified, but it's not okay with me and I hope not okay with you. And, please, I'm sick to death of the mealy mouthed excuses that it can't be done or chaos would ensue or the legislatures would appoint the same flavor of corrupt individuals that keep getting elected by the mobs. I would say Apollo 13 qualified as a situation where chaos might have taken over, but it didn't. Strong minds, professionalism and faith brought those astronauts home. We are a different nation now than in 1913. We have the power, literally, of the people at the state level to make damn sure those appointed senators represent the rights and interests of the state which benefit all of us or we vote out the state representatives and senators who appointed them. If we truly are to be a nation of self governance, then we have to take control. Those individuals in the state houses work for us, not the other way around. This will only happen when a few state legislatures go for the cure. Do what Rep. Joshua Davenport did - get a bill introduced THIS session. This is an emergency, so maybe there is some way it can be done in your state. Those counterfeit U.S. Senators are killing jobs, making more and more regulations hurting the rights of your citizens, not to mention our God-given rights. Yes, it IS an emergency as we slide further into the continuing nightmare. Okay, forget New York, California and states like mine (Texas) who are out of session until Jan. 2013. It would be close to impossible to get a special session called for something so important as fraud and the right of the state to expose it. Every state has its own rules about introducing bills, but if you want something bad enough, it can get done. Over the years I have been asked to endorse senate candidates; I have refused. I have not voted for a senate candidate since 1996. I will NOT be party to the continuing fraud. No individual has the right to run for the U.S. Senate. I know "senators" like Rand Paul are very popular and if this fraud were exposed, their state legislature can still appoint him to carry on. This is a mess (with both amendments), but by golly, it can be dealt with one step at a time. Or, do we continue to live with lies, fraud and destruction? No more resolutions asking Congress to pretty please, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. That will never happen and it's not even the legal way to address this. While I would like to have seen a few state legislators challenge ballot access, too many state judges are cowards just like federal judges. Here are the individuals I sent the material to besides the representatives in New Hampshire: Rep. Phil Hart [Idaho], Rep. Pete Nielsen {Idaho], Rep. Bryan Hughes [Texas}, Senator David Williams {Kentucky], Senator Howard Stephenson [Utah], Rep. Leo Berman [Texas], Rep. Matthew Shea {Washington State] Rep. Lois Kolkhorst [Texas] and Rep. Jim Landtroop [Texas]. While I did not send him the materials, if you live in Arizona (think the slimy, corrupt John McCain), I would contact Sen. Ron Gould. He knows all about this fraud. All are fine individuals. If we don't try, we will surely continue down the abyss. This is NOT a political party issue. It's about fraud and the real intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. It's about the right of the states in this Union to have representation in the U.S. Congress.
I want you to go look at this case: Sullivan vs. U.S., et al. A 2003 case which clearly demonstrates federal judges are too cowardly to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and should be thrown off the bench by Congress. While that case dealt with war and the Monroe Doctrine, read the actual words of Judge James C. Cox, beginning on page 23: “..you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment (16th)”. And, "I think I'm correct in saying that actually the ratification never occurred."
Page 23 from above my truth seeking friend.
It wasn't lawfully ratified. Just like the income tax. Just because the court says something doesn't make it constitutional. Also the real 13th amendment is still in force lawfully. Several of the people who voted for this bill are not even real citizens via disqualification from the 13th amendment. If we had honest people in the courts we never would have had the UN. It is usurpation and the destruction of our constitutional Republic which I love.
web.archive.org/web/20020...end_13/virginia_code.html
Not offhand, no. However.... The article contains the certification of the Secretary of State for the 17th Amendment. Legally, as a political matter, his certification decision is final not subject to judicial review. One of the cited sources, Bill Benson, had his crap with similar claims about the 16th Amendment shut down by the Justice Department as a scam in 2004. Basically, the sources are a Who's Who of 16th Amendment Tax Protesters who specialize in selling snake oil. The case for the non-ratification 16th Amendment has been repeatedly rejected by the courts and people who don't pay their taxes based on tax protester books wind up paying their taxes with interest and penalties, and possibly go to jail. The claimed "victories" of these experts is when they avoid a criminal conviction for the actions. In the matter of paying taxes, nobody has ever prevailed on a non-ratification argument. The List of Errors in Resolutions of State Legislatures re the 17th is probably the same crap that Benson tried to make something of relative to the 16th. Some of the states presented the proposed Amendment text with incorrect capitalization or punctuation or such. The ruling was that this did not negate the ratification. A state by state review of that (re the 16th claims) is provided here.
Actually, standing is a constitutional requirement to bring a case in Federal court. Absent party standing, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule. The Sullivans were dismissed in North Carolina state court as well, also on standing. They didn't have any. The State court denied standing because the requested relief was beyond the authority of the court. In the argument in Federal court, at page 13, the Judge stated, "In other words, we have a question here of really whether or not there is any judicial remedy." The logic is spelled out after that. http://www.scribd.com/doc/168095918/Sullivan-v-North-Carolina-NC-Ct-App-COA04-600-17-May-2005-OPINION
Printing something in a book, in error, does not transform it into law. What was printed in that book was never ratified and never became part of the Constitution.
You are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion plus absolute documented proof would not change the effectiveness of the amendment and you could not get your evidence considered in court, regardless of how absolute it is. Once the ratification is certified by the Secretary of State, the only way to change the status is another amendment. No, but it makes it effective law until overturned. Abortion is legal. I can't find that in the Constitution but I can in Roe v. Wade, vaguely emanating from a penumbra someplace. A state law to ban abortion will simply be struck down as unconstitutional. Only SCOTUS could change the interpretation. The people could amend the Constitution and do what they like. Once upon a time... and they all lived happily ever after.
See something real. See specifically: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification A tax lawyer dismantles the claim that the 16th Amendment was not ratified. http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm Motion for Preliminary Injunction Permanent Injunction at 3: United States v William J Benson, ILND Eastern Div No 04-C-7403, Doc 116, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, 16th Amdt T... by nolu chan Benson was convicted of tax fraud and sentenced to four years in prison. He was paroled on November 28, 1994.
No, The Law of Nations is a book by Vattel. It's not international law unless it's in the book. It also proves that Obama is a usurper. Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone’s Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them: 1. No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal. And, although it was not yet firmly established with all nations in 1788, 8. Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves. No subsequent additions to the “law of nations” could have the effect of expanding the delegated powers under the Constitution. Ratification froze those powers at the moment of ratification. Only the amendment procedures provided under the Constitution can add to, subtract from, or modify them and thus make them binding upon the states’ and its people. - http://constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm So, treaties cannot “trump” the Constitution, as many people claim, unless they are put in place as a Constitutional Amendment. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/06/06/do-treaties-trump-the-constitution/#.UjQ6at0UUWM [The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur... There's the first instance of bullshit. I would very much like to see the UN implode.
We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
Bullshit. They lied. Lying isn't ok.
I would very much like to see the UN implode. Amen brother.
You're correct there. Gotta run. Some trees are waiting on me.
Self ping for later. Interesting.
The real 13th amendment was certified. Obama isn't a citizen via 13th amendment. Deport the murderer back to ape land.
No, the Law of Nations is a body of law which derived from custom and usage. Vattel wrote a book about the Law of Nations or International Law. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) is "considered by many to be the father of international law." Vattel wasn't even born until 1714. The Federal government adopted the British Common Law legal system. Every original state also adopted the British common law system, either by statute or in their state constitution. The Law of Nations only applies to relations between two or more nation states. It does not apply to domestic law of anyplace.
Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S.Ct. 495, 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 & n. 6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as on the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.
Campion v Towns, USDC Arizona CV-04-1516 (15 Jul 2005) the REAL 13th Amdt (Not), at 2:
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
I don't agree that we need UN approval to declare war. Our congress does that.
Article 1
#4. To: nolu chan (#3)
Using force against a member state that has not attacked the U.S. is an act of aggression. Being the aggressor, throwing the first punch, violates international law.
#5. To: nolu chan (#3)
#6. To: nolu chan (#3)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
The Declaration of Independence also trumps the constitution.
#8. To: nolu chan (#7)
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of any place and never has been.
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
The Constitution is the organic law of the United States and trumps everything in conflict with it within the jurisdiction of the U.S.
#10. To: nolu chan (#7)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#4)
Our constitution doesn't recognize international law.
We can have treaties with individual nations.
But it doesn't have the authority under the "limited" powers that you mentioned elsewhere to join an organization that usurps the states rights.
The constitution clearly gives the congress the right to declare war. Even if we are the aggressors and wrong.
The UN wasn't even presented as a treaty.
The United Nations Charter is the constituting instrument of the Organization, setting out the rights and obligations of Member States, and establishing the United Nations organs and procedures. An international treaty, the Charter codifies the major principles of international relations, from sovereign equality of States to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.
Senate Ratifies United Nations Charter, July 28, 1945
#12. To: nolu chan (#11)
Our constitution doesn't recognize international law.
#13. To: nolu chan (#11)
The does not usurp our authority. Accepting UN definitions is voluntary. If we wish to leave the UN, nothing is stopping us.
#14. To: nolu chan (#11)
The treaty to establish the UN was ratified by the Senate 89-2 and signed by President Truman.
#15. To: nolu chan (#11)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#9)
The states trump the constitution. They created it.
#17. To: nolu chan (#11)
#18. To: nolu chan (#16)
Dane and my other friend can verify we were given the run around during the collection of some documents. We asked for everything on the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. Every document no matter if it was a letter, vote, copy of the resolution. We were told the rolls of microfilm in the archives contained ALL records.
All of these documents were on microfilm and copied by all of us at some point. They were copied in order off the microfilm and we were very careful not to skip any pages.
If at all possible and you live near your state capitol, I hope you can visit and get court certified, every document they have on the vote and any correspondence from your state to Washington, DC on the Seventeenth Amendment — before more documents disappear. See link at bottom on the thief, Sandy Berger.
If you are a state legislator, please do everything in your official capacity to make your state archives produce all documents relating to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment by your state. I do not exaggerate when I say there is a high probability that some are already missing and we don't want more to vanish.
Many states were not in session at the time the Seventeenth Amendment was submitted. No Action was taken by some legislatures which begs the legal question:
If a state legislature was out of session at the time the voting process was underway, do they lose their equal right to representation due to actions by Congress beyond their control? I believe this is a KEY legal issue that must be addressed by the states; see:
Full text of "Constitution Jefferson's Manual And Rules Of the House Of Representatives Of The United States Eighty Seventh Congress"
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose, Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
No Action taken: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware. No record for Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington State.
That Amendment was processed by Philander Chase Knox, Secretary of State in 1912, and then by his successor, William Jennings Bryan. I provide that just to clear up any confusion looking through the documents. The page numbers I refer to are ones I put on each page to avoid getting the documents mixed up since there are 239 of them.
From the official documents:
June 2, 1913 — See page 17, 24 & 25
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Page 26: "...the Executive branch* of the Government ruled that these errors were immaterial to the adoption of the amendment, it is clear that the procedure in which may be properly followed in proclaiming the adoption of the proposed amendment — that is to say, that the Secretary of State may disregard the errors contained in the certified copies of the Resolution of the Legislatures acting affirmatively on the proposed amendment." (Italics mine)
Please note on page 27:
William Jennings Bryan declared the Seventeenth Amendment ratified at 11:00 am, May 31, 1913, by proclamation.
Constitutional Attorney Larry Becraft represented Bill Benson in a lawsuit over the Sixteenth Amendment in the State of Oklahoma in 2001. For additional information on that lawsuit, see Inside Oklahoma's 16th Amendment lawsuit.
In Bill Benson's book, he has a letter dated May 3, 1913, written by John B. Moore, Assistant Secretary of State to His Excellency, the Governor of Wisconsin. In this letter he says, "A comparison of the last mentioned Resolution with the one passed [emphasis mine] by the Wisconsin Legislature shows that certain clauses and paragraphs have been added in the later Resolution which were not contained in the Resolution passed by Congress."
No other documentation showing another vote was taken.
Some of the states are not on microfilm in DC. They would be sandwiched between other states and should have been on the rolls: Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington State.
Those documents (239 pages) I collected were court certified by the Archivist. I photographed them with the seal, but in order to go through them page by page, I had to cut the seal and the 'button's which bundled them. Those photos are here. (Also this link)
The file containing all the documents for the states above, click here.
Why the Seventeenth Amendment can't be repealed
The states are stomped on. The American people are bled to death via heavy progressive taxation and those fruits of our labor go into the coffers of an international and domestic banking cartel draining the lifeblood of this country and our people.
It was a conspiracy. A provable conspiracy: The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin.
Griffin's book is a factual account of the secret meetings at Jekyll Island between powerful bankers to seize and control the monetary system of our country. They were aided and abetted by rotten, corrupt senators who got the bill pushed through. You can watch an interview with G. Edward Griffin on the "FED" here.
"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr.
"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.
"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" — Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.
Lindbergh's book, Banking and Currency and The Money Trust is available free on line.
Fess, Simeon D. 1861—1936. works: Ratification of the Constitution and amendments by the states By statement: prepared by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress ... Series: 71st Cong., 3d sess. Senate. Doc., 240, Senate document (United States. Congress. Senate) ; 71st Congress, no. 240. Most large libraries carry this publication.
Proposing a Constitutional Amendment
Proof the Seventeenth Amendment Was Not Ratified
Bill Benson's collected documents. They are invaluable because they come from the state legislatures; their archives. These were not available to me in Washington, DC. I have not reproduced them because they are Bill's labor.
Special Page for State Legislators on Seventeenth Amendment
"They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. "Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.
#19. To: nolu chan (#18)
No Action taken: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware. No record for Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington State.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#12)
There is no constitutional authority for states to lose their say.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#13)
The states didn't have lawful senators when the UN was "ratified".
#22. To: nolu chan (#11)
Advertisement
#23. To: All (#22)
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
#25. To: nolu chan (#21)
but I don't see how it is unlawful.
#26. To: All (#25)
#27. To: All (#26)
#28. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Can you document that this is incorrect?
#29. To: A K A Stone (#23)
I want you to go look at this case: Sullivan vs. U.S., et al. A 2003 case which clearly demonstrates federal judges are too cowardly to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and should be thrown off the bench by Congress.
Defendants moved to dismiss the action, contending that the claim was not justiciable and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on 1 March 2004, finding plaintiffs lacked standing, that defendants were protected by sovereign immunity, and that the complaint presented political questions not justiciable by the court. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in dismissing their claims on these grounds. We disagree.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#26)
#31. To: A K A Stone (#25)
It wasn't lawfully ratified. Just like the income tax.
Just because the court says something doesn't make it constitutional.
Also the real 13th amendment is still in force lawfully.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Page 23 from above my truth seeking friend.
Truth: Every court in which a tax protestor has used arguments raised by Benson has upheld the votes of the 38 states ratifying the amendment (only three states' votes were challenged at the time) and Benson's arguments have lost every time used. Benson brought arguments that other highly knowledgeable people, including Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, could have made against the amendment. No one, except a few in the states already mentioned, did so. Benson, who admittedly is not a constitutional expert, and who admittedly did not obtain copies of the state laws of every state he says violated its laws to pass the amendment, is simply one more tax protestor who thought he had found a clever way to avoid paying the tax. He was wrong.
3. In United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir. 1991), the Seventh Circuit explicitly rejected Benson's arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly ratified. In view of his prior convictions for tax evasion and failure to file tax returns, and the decisions of the Seventh Circuit that refute the central concept of Benson's "Reliance Defense Package" (his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified), the Court finds that Benson knew or had reason to know that his statements in promoting the Reliance Defense Package were false or fraudulent. Benson has thus engaged in conduct subject to penalty under Section 6700.
#33. To: nolu chan (#11)
Law of Nations is the archaic term and is interchangeable with the modern term. International Law.
“It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term “law of nations”, and not confuse it with “international law”. They are not the same thing. The phrase “law of nations” is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the “laws”, that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of “international law”. The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.
2. Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.
3. Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.
4. Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.
5. Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.
6. Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.
7. Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one’s territory or are found on the high seas.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate. The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote Third Party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#34. To: A K A Stone (#0)
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
#35. To: nolu chan (#28)
The article contains the certification of the Secretary of State for the 17th Amendment. Legally, as a political matter, his certification decision is final not subject to judicial review.
#36. To: We The People (#34)
There's the first instance of bullshit.
#37. To: nolu chan (#31)
No, but it makes it effective law until overturned.
#38. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#33)
#39. To: nolu chan (#28)
certification decision is final not subject to judicial review
#40. To: hondo68 (#33)
No, The Law of Nations is a book by Vattel. It's not international law unless it's in the book.
#41. To: A K A Stone (#35)
Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#39)
Additionally, the Court will correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his Complaint, Plaintiff includes a certified copy of the Thirteenth Amendment from the Colorado State Archives which was published in 1861. As included in that compilation, the Thirteenth Amendment would strip an individual of United States citizenship if they accept any title of nobility or honor. [Doc. # 1 (Compl.) at 46.] However, this is not the Thirteenth Amendment. The correct Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery. Although some people claim that state publication of the erroneous Thirteenth Amendment makes it valid, Article V of the Constitution does not so provide. Jol A. Silversmith, The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility, S. Cal. Interdic. L.J. 577, 590- 91 and 593 (1999).
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]