Our Freedom, At Stake Over Debatable Science

I will be reading into this further and posting again this evening, if this is correct, I am severely disturbed by the consideration of a UN charter which would jeopardize American Freedoms.

View Lord Christopher  Monckton’s complete speech here

The basis of this speech is set around the interpretation of the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2), which states that any treaty which the United States enters into may become federal law, superseding any domestic laws which exists.  This particular constitutional clause was attempted to be covered by an amendment, however, was not passed.  As per  National Affairs, July 13, 1953

“The Supreme Law. The debate turns on a clause (Article VI, Clause 2) in the U.S. Constitution that makes treaties—along with federal laws and the Constitution itself—”the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Laws must be made “in pursuance” of the Constitution, but treaties need only be made “under the Authority of the United States,” i.e., by the President, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . . provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” Thus treaty provisions can, without legislation, become internal law, enforceable on individual citizens and overriding conflicting laws, both state and federal. If a treaty provision is not enforceable as it stands, Congress has the power under Article I to make “necessary and proper” laws to put it into effect.

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, Article VI means that treaty provisions, or “necessary and proper” laws based on the treaties, can regulate matters that the Constitution otherwise reserves to the states and the people. After federal courts had declared a 1913 migratory-bird protection law invalid on the ground that it violated the Tenth Amendment (”The powers not delegated … are reserved . . .”), the U.S. and Canada agreed by treaty to protect birds that flew between the two countries. Then Congress passed a law similar to the 1913 law. In 1920, in the famous Missouri v. Holland decision, the Supreme Court upheld the statute, ruling in effect that the Federal Government can derive from treaties legislative powers not specifically granted by the Constitution.  Read more“

According to the bit of the UN resolution I have read so far, developed countries are indebted to developing and third world countries because they have used far more of the carbon footprint in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.  So, in turn, they must drastically reduce their carbon footprint so as to ensure basic liberties are endowed upon developing peoples.  Read the full draft of the resolution here, but I warn you, its long.

I will post about this again,and also look for this in the forum.

Tags: climate change, global warming, Politics