Political News - Conservative Views - Education - Solutions
The Law Uf The Sea Treaty ( L.O.S.T). : It's just another distraction. Filler-headlines. They have to AVOID the issues any way they can.
' Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Article VI, paragraph 3 requires all Federal and State officers to also swear:"...to support this [U.S.] Constitution..."
Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."
All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":
(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).
A treaty may not do or exceed what the Congress is charged to do or what it is forbidden to do. Constitutional authority supersedes, overrules, and precludes any contrary treaty authority.
Thus, if a proposed treaty would violate any provision of the Constitution, it may not even be seriously considered or debated, much less be ratified and implemented because the same restrictions that were placed by the Constitution on the U.S. Federal government are also imposed on any treaty provision.
Treaty embroilment is so dangerous and so important, that to further limit and restrict their making, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 orders that the President: "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
This provision accomplishes two things: 1) it prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home."
Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.
In 1789, the States directly ratified the Constitution --- as per Article VII. Since then, the States through their representatives (their Senators) must also ratify any treaty --- Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 --- for the same reason, namely, that the creators (the States) must have the final say.
Further, Article VI, paragraph 2 quoted above commands that if and when all of the above requirements for a treaty are met --- that is, a) it does not contradict the Constitution; b) it is negotiated by the President who has sworn to not violate, and who in fact is not violating the Constitution; and c) it is ratified by two thirds of the State-defending-Senators who have sworn to not violate, and who do not by their vote violate the Constitution --- then, and only then, may the treaty in question go into full force and effect for the Union and for all of the individual States in the Union. This latter consequence is the reason for Article VI, paragraph 2 to conclude:
"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the [not "this"] Constitution [ of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]"
So, the Judges in each State must obey a bona fide treaty, even if the treaty is contrary to that state's Constitution or contrary to any law of that state.
Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not "under the Authority of the United States" to make such a treaty.
Ergo, treaties ("made, or which shall be made") that violate the U.S. Constitution by subjugating the United States to an outside power ARE PROHIBITED, of no effect, and thus, null and void. [*1]
(In other words, relax. Chill out! Don't let yourselves get distracted so easily; and stay FOCUSED on Barack Insane Obama, and his FAILED and treacherous policies.)