U.S. Pushing New Treaties at Expense of National Sovereignty

Great title.

www.truthdig.com...

I know most 'sovereignty' type use it regarding personal sovereignty but there is no personal sovereighnty (or right to choose) without national sovereignty.

This and other recent trade deals are putting corporate people above (and possibly in control of) any laws (local, state or federal) we natural people create to protect ourselves and our neighbors.

Take foreign trade. Being negotiated right now are American-sponsored corporate efforts to alter trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific international trade relations through new agreements that undermine or effectively nullify many countries’ existing national legislation on health, environment, pricing, food safety and other issues, accomplishing this by pressuring them to sign new international agreements that have treaty status, which in most countries supersedes domestic law.

Certainly treaties do so under the United States Constitution, which means that not only foreigners but Americans themselves will suffer if this smash-and-grab legislation passes in the U.S. Congress. (Fortunately, there is mounting opposition even in Congress, the land where corporate money now rules—but perhaps not always.)

Does anyone know where in the Constitution of the US it says that treaties supercede domestic laws?

The proposed agreements deal with patents and other intellectual property (in order to extend the life of corporate patents and sequester scientific data so it cannot be used competitively). The U.S. negotiators have even proposed that surgical procedures be subjected to patents, even though this may be contrary to existing American law and that of other countries.

From the consumer viewpoint, the most pernicious provision on the table would permit business corporations to sue governments for domestic regulations or laws that limit their actual or potential profits—and worse yet, to do so in special tribunals outside the normal legal systems of the affected countries, free of the rules of due process and public disclosure that prevail in the usual judicial systems of nation.

www.truthdig.com...

Article VI, Clause 2.

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Source: Cornell Law

They can pass gas like a hurricane after a chili cook-off for all it matters. If it doesn't pass the smell test of the U.S. Constitution, it won't stand in the courts for enforcement. Nothing has yet and nothing will until or unless we lose an independent Judiciary. They are idiots at times...and the Bench has it's own Stench...but they still protect their own power, which is what matters for us here. That directly defines their power and allowing it to be altered would be cutting their own throats within the Courts. I deem it exceptionally unlikely to see happen, personally.

Wrabbit2000
Article VI, Clause 2.

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Source: Cornell Law

They can pass gas like a hurricane after a chili cook-off for all it matters. If it doesn't pass the smell test of the U.S. Constitution, it won't stand in the courts for enforcement. Nothing has yet and nothing will until or unless we lose an independent Judiciary. They are idiots at times...and the Bench has it's own Stench...but they still protect their own power, which is what matters for us here. That directly defines their power and allowing it to be altered would be cutting their own throats within the Courts. I deem it exceptionally unlikely to see happen, personally.

Thanks for the citation.

Okay I get 'treaties entered into before' - that's simple enough.

However I don't see any 'order of precedence' for whether US law or US treaties takes precedence in disputes. I'm really not sure how to read this.

It reads, to me, that the US law and US treaties take precedence over state and local laws but that treaties are subject to US law.

So - now, it appears (the mad scientist secrecy makes knowing difficult) that these neo-lib/con treaties are a legal manuevor to trump US (and other sovereign nations) laws.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Well, there isn't anything there for order of precedence because the pecking order for Local, State and up to Federal are established elsewhere by the separation of powers in one example and ultimately, within the 10th Amendment of allowing all things not specifically itemized within the Constitution, to be the domain of individual states in how it's handled and decided.

Those issues all come within and as a part of the Constitutional Tent, as one way of putting it. Treaties exist outside the tent. If the door guard (The Supremacy Clause and law it's based upon) indicate the newcomer has the credentials to join everyone else, in the tent they go as a treaty establishing new law within the United States (Upon ratification, of course).

If it fails the Constitutional test or contradicts the Constitution, then it doesn't get in the tent to be a consideration for enforcement in the first place. The executive branch, as only ONE of three equal parts, cannot do a thing to change that. However much they'd like to or give that impression.

That is my understanding of this by considerable research. It's absolutely NOT an understanding I'd file a case based upon or even enter into a meaningful debate on, where the outcome had serious stakes to consider. So take it for what you will, if it's helpful.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Well, there isn't anything there for order of precedence because the pecking order for Local, State and up to Federal are established elsewhere by the separation of powers in one example and ultimately, within the 10th Amendment of allowing all things not specifically itemized within the Constitution, to be the domain of individual states in how it's handled and decided.

Those issues all come within and as a part of the Constitutional Tent, as one way of putting it. Treaties exist outside the tent. If the door guard (The Supremacy Clause and law it's based upon) indicate the newcomer has the credentials to join everyone else, in the tent they go as a treaty establishing new law within the United States (Upon ratification, of course).

If it fails the Constitutional test or contradicts the Constitution, then it doesn't get in the tent to be a consideration for enforcement in the first place. The executive branch, as only ONE of three equal parts, cannot do a thing to change that. However much they'd like to or give that impression.

That is my understanding of this by considerable research. It's absolutely NOT an understanding I'd file a case based upon or even enter into a meaningful debate on, where the outcome had serious stakes to consider. So take it for what you will, if it's helpful.

Thanks it does help - I think - maybe.

That makes this even more important. I guess owning the judiciary gets corporate people in the tent regardless.

Wrabbit2000
If it doesn't pass the smell test of the U.S. Constitution, it won't stand in the courts for enforcement. Nothing has yet and nothing will until or unless we lose an independent Judiciary.

Seriously? You can look at the SCOTUS' recent decisions regarding Obamacare, this week's punt on the NSA data collection lawsuit, the Patriot Act Frankenstein monster, the Arizona immigration and voter ID laws, Citizens United, upholding the FCC rules, upholding virtually anything a president slaps a "NATIONAL SECURITY" logo onto, hell Dredd Scott even, and say that nothing has passed the court's enforcement that was unconstitutional?

We need to start facing a very basic fact, all 3 branches of government are standing as far away from the Constitution as they possibly can and they keep the majority of the masses satiated by throwing them candies from their bunting covered floats. "Here's have a handfull of entitlements and some tiny American flags! If you complain about paying for everyone else's entitlements, you're a hate monger... and if you don't wave the [crap] out of that tiny flag you're antiAmerican!"

reply to post by burdman30ott6

Seriously? You can look at the SCOTUS' recent decisions regarding Obamacare, this week's punt on the NSA data collection lawsuit, the Patriot Act Frankenstein monster, the Arizona immigration and voter ID laws, Citizens United, upholding the FCC rules, upholding virtually anything a president slaps a "NATIONAL SECURITY" logo onto, hell Dredd Scott even, and say that nothing has passed the court's enforcement that was unconstitutional?

Well, I think it's realistically a matter of levels of bad and degree of problem to the nation overall, yet the courts are a whole different kind of problem from the other two Branches.

That does make them one to watch and one that could (and does) change some of what happens. They also have what amounts to absolute power as the final and only real appeal level from the other two Branches once it gets that high.

Obama hasn't been having terribly good luck though. The Heller and McDonald decisions on firearms came during his term and rained cats and dogs on his parade, such that it ever might have been. Recall, before Heller, the very definition of a Militia for reference to average citizens was a fair debate point due to a lack of legal clarity.

Obamacare also had a nice decision, in my opinion. Oh, there was the negative side of course and that was the side that Obama danced a little jig with back when it was decided. The decision ALSO carried with it the State's affirmation of rights to pretty much tell him where to shove the whole concept without penalty. That included no expansion to the Medi- programs, which isn't nice but will save a good many states economically, too. A mixed bag.

The Courts have absolute power but ..by design and to counter the power.. are absolutely without initiative. Someone has to bring the case that fits the law making it stand right for a court to get nasty about ...which they've been rather colorful about with the NSA too, I might note. NSA has had REAL bad luck with delays and any number of other requests on cases currently in the Federal system. Not much sympathy from the Robed side of things.

Getting money out of politics and making corporations non persons is the way to stop all of this.
We all know that money in politics is bad but, how can a corporation be a person if we can not execute it?
I'll believe corporations are people when they start executing the entire board of members and confiscating assets to be divided amongst the peoples of the United States, for their crimes against humanity.

The TTP and TTIP aren't a challenge to sovereignty in the sense that it will change our social laws however it is very capable of changing our business, regulatory, tax and property laws. Essentially, it takes these matters out of the hands of Congress... now those laws we have in place currently aren't the best but it's a horrible idea to take that power away from Congress where we the people get to vote out or in things we don't like or like. By signing these "trade" treaties we are agreeing for the applicable laws to automatically become compliant and subject to change by panels made up of multinational corporations or become subject to lawsuits of the likes we have never seen.

This isn't like treaties signed with the UN wherein if we aren't compliant everyone just says tsk tsk. It isn't like the UN where we can just walk away and say okay you're on your own now... our entire economy is (if either of these get signed) going to be tied to transnational corporations.

Some people may look at it like it's okay because many of those transnational corporations are American in origin so just like with the UN we will be the big dogs in it all. I would ask those people if it's even a tiny bit of a good idea to take any power away from Congress, even a Congress that is as dysfunctional as ours currently is... we still have the power to change Congress, we get no vote as to who is on these panels.

Say your daughter needs a life saving surgery. Now that surgery can be done one of two ways, one minimally invasive with a higher success rate or one majorly invasive with a high mortality rate but the better technique is patented by one surgeon or more likely one hospital or university group and they aren't licensing the technique out.

These treaties are nothing less than an all out grab to own the rights to EVERYTHING. It is the stuff of nightmares. We have to fight this tooth and nail.

reply to post by g146541

Getting money out of politics and making corporations non persons is the way to stop all of this.
We all know that money in politics is bad but, how can a corporation be a person if we can not execute it?

How can a Union be a person? Sorry..but I 100% and fully supported the Citizens United decision and I still do. It pissed Obama off so badly he made an ass of himself in front of the world by ridiculing the Supreme Court members before a global audience. A move he is STILL paying for in decisions he loses almost like clockwork when they reach that level of the Judicial Branch. Even Super Court Justices hold grudges.

The thing is.. Remove Corporate money because that organization is a business for profit, and you leave the Union money that is just as or MORE powerful, running opposite in political ideology in most cases, and happy to just outright RUN the field as their very own if they can just get rid of those pesky business dollars.

Kill 'em both or leave 'em both ...and the latter IS what happened. How it ought to be.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I don't remember ever saying that a union was a person.
A person should be something that can bleed blood and breath air, has 2 legs and walks upright.
Not any created fiction.
This and getting money out of politics is still the best way.
And let's face it, since corporations have become "persons" has this world gotten any better, nope it has gotten much worse.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


In that regard I somewhat agree with you. The correct SCOTUS decision would have been to bring the ax down on both corporate and union palm greasing directed at the government. Obama's outrage was phoney as a 3 dollar bill, though. The man makes just as much off corporations as anyone on the Right does.

burdman30ott6
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

The correct SCOTUS decision would have been to bring the ax down on both corporate and union palm greasing directed at the government.

In that, we do agree 100%. It they could write the law to cover private organizations putting money into politics, for-profit or not on the nature of them, I'd be all for banning it all. Across the board and without regard to what type of organization they are. IBM or Fox down to Charities. After all, it's all just bundling for out-sized political impact in the end, right?

One of my instructors at the college ran against Roy Blunt, who is representing Missouri in Washington, among others. The instructor lost, obviously, but the sad thing (...and I could tell he was more than a little sad on it too, even some time after it happening), after he got everything together to file and start trying? No one cared either way about what he thought, wanted or cared about personally. They only cared about 1. Was he a loyal Republican and 2. Could he fund-raise.

How sad has it become when that's the actual driving priority? Who needs TPTB? The almighty dollar is above them all, to a good %.