Constitution Question?

Question

Our US Constitution guarantees our soverignty and citizen's rights. Without another constitutional amendment, when Bush in 2010 gives up our soveregnty to the North America Free Trade Union's SPP, Nasco giving Mexico 400,000 sq acres in Kansas City, and having our supreme court silenced by having a higher international court decide America's cases and all of this that goes with it;

and given the fact there is no part of the Constitution that says if one part of this contract is found to be null and void without an amemdment that the rest of the Constitution would still be valid;

Wouldn't that break the contract of the Constitution, of which all other laws are validated through, and be broken between the people and the government?

I say what Bush wants to do with Mexico, USA, and Canada is unconstitutional, and to do so would 1) break the contract of the constitution between the people and the government or 2) nullify the constitution because it's been replace.

What say you

If you don't know that the Senate bill is another law designed to ultimately relieve the constitution from your protections of live, liberty, and happiness because what Mexico is doing the rest of the world can do to change our laws to make our country like theirs, then you haven't done all your homework yet!

Answer 1

The truth is the main reason illegal immigration hasn't been curbed is the Government doesn't respect its own laws to enforce them.

Answer 2

If you want to go by that logic, which I am all for at this point, everything after the Federal Reserve Act (which was a flagrant violation of the constitution) should be null and void. The founding fathers were very clear in their belief that no one should have the right to create money, only coin it for personal use, much less what we have today where a private group of bankers owns the Federal Reserve and can print as much money as they wanted not tied to anything of value other than their good faith. Leading us throught the last 100 years to Bush and co who, between their wiretapping and extraordinary rendition, have been stripping the Bill of Rights bare.

1984 here we come, sorry we didn't take you more seriously Mr. Orwell.

Answer 3

Well, I wasn't aware that we were giving up our sovereignty. I thought it was just a trade agreement, where a Mexican company gets some land, and the higher court you speak of would interpret only trade contracts and international laws dealing with the North American Nations. The laws of the US would still be the laws of the US, and anything not covered in the trade agreement would be relegated to each individual nation. Only international commerce laws would be regulated by this higher court. Of course, I'll admit that I haven't done much home-work on this, so I don't know that for sure.

Article II, Section II of the Constitution says:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.





Now, this means that President Bush, with approval from Congress, can make whatever treaty he so chooses. Of course, we'll have to examine judicial powers.


Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.




Thus, we find that the Supreme Court has the juristiction to decide all cases dealing with this treaty if said cases originate in the US. Thus, it is not the Constitution that would be voided, but the very treaty President Bush signed that would be voided (although not unConstitutional).

The treaty is perfectly within the scope of the Constitution. The problem with the treaty, as you describe it (again, I haven't really looked into it) is that the US cannot take part in it because of the US Constitution. Any amendment made to the Constitution would create a contradiction, and the Supreme Court would rule it to be stricken. What happens then is that the treaty is uninforceable, thus making it void (a treaty is a contract, and remember that all contracts have to be enforceable). So, it's not unConstitutional, nor would it void the Constitution, it voids the treaty itself. The contract between the government and the people (the Constitution is the contract) is not breached, but the contract between the US, Mexico and Canada is.

It appears as though you have nothing to truly worry about, as I'm sure a lawyer with intelligence will see this and make a grand argument. Again, though, I haven't heard about this higher international court, so everything I said is based on the information you gave, and the information you gave alone. If there are other details, it may chance what I've said, and the resulting implications.

Answer 4

I'm afraid not everything goes through Congress, as one participant suggested ... I have a link that sent shudders down my spine ... the United States as a soverign nation will cease to be ... Americans really will have to wake up!!

http://www.trumpetamerica.org/060710ta2337.html

Answer 5

First, separate fact from fiction. Second, study the Constitution, there's nothing in it against free trade, nor should there be

Answer 6

He (bush,..no capital letter)does NOT speak for me!! He is walking on TREASONOUS grounds!! He needs to be impeached before the next election, before he puts this country into absolute RUIN!! Who will PAY for that da^^ned highway? The tax payers!! Who will maintain that highway? The tax payers!! Who will use that highway? ILLEGAL ╒Ú¢Қing IMMIGRANTS, that's 'WHO'!! He is suppose to UPHOLD the Constitution and WE the people have the right to impeach his @$$ if he fails to do so!

OMG!! Sashie, I went to that website!! It took my breath away!! My heart skipped a beat!! Like I said that idiot needs to be stopped ASAP!! We need to deluge our senators with e-mails and letters to get this plan stopped in its tracks!! This is UNREAL!!

Answer 7

Apparantly, He doesn't care about the constitution..

Quote from George W. Bush.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Answer 8

Bush is a goddamn traitor and should be impeached. He's also a disgrace to the American people.

Answer 9

"Bush" every thing done in and by this county goes though congress. learn how the government works.

Answer 10

bush is just a lucky rich hillbilly with too much time on his hands! he followed daddy's footsteps and now the presidency is interfering with his vacations!