North American Union

[RogerFGay]

An agreement to end the United States without the approval of Congress or the People.

"NAFTA on steriods."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA

[RogerFGay]

The Conservative Caucus on the Dangers of the North American Union.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxzs46Nxohk

[RogerFGay]

hmmmmm ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brYWujMC-0k

[RogerFGay]

Moved to the Twilight Zone. One wishes it could be moved there in real life.

[EveningStar]

Moved to the Twilight Zone. One wishes it could be moved there in real life.
It doesn't exist in real life.

[Timberwolf]

Uh, YEAH, it does...hopefully the willfully blind will open their eyes before it's too late.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It doesn't exist in real life.
Absolutely correct. To form a North American Union that would include the U.S., a Constitutional amendment would be required. There is no way that two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states would approve such an amendment.

[garlicguy]

Uh, YEAH, it does...hopefully the willfully blind will open their eyes before it's too late.

Amen. But it's not popular to talk about it.

Tex and Luc will go into ecstacies of fantasy with their denials. They'll probably have to move the thread someplace else so more people miss it.

Oh. Wait....

[Naturalized-Texan]

Why you needn't lose sleep over a "North American Union" (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=an_open_letter_to_a_worried_p atriot_why_you_neednt_lose_sleep_over_a_north_amer ican_union&ns=MichaelMedved&dt=05/09/2007&page=1)

May I also remind you that the main source of all the alarmism on this non-existent threat is a struggling website known as WorldNutDaily that also promoted an “authoritative” report that consumption of soy milk caused the current epidemic of homosexuality. When I ridiculed that story on the air, and invited its author and researcher to defend his crapola in public, he quickly scurried away to the dank and dingy under-the-rock quarters from which his “science” originated.

And please note that the same flamers and losers who promote the “North American Union” nonsense also warned the world that Y2K would bring the end of civilization as we know it. I scoffed at that paranoia at the time, and of course I was completely right. Where are the apologies from the demagogues who scared millions with tales that the “Millenium Bug” would cause our economy to collapse and democracy to end?

.....................

The “North American Union” isn’t a real threat – in the political mainstream, no one favors it, no one advocates it, no one is planning it. With all the billions of words written against the North American Union, where are the corresponding speeches, articles, columns, or manifestos that actually favor it?

At the moment, the agitation and paranoia about this non-existent “scheme” (who are the schemers, anyway?) serves as a Weapon of Mass Distraction – taking good people (like you) out of the real battles where we need you. (Emphasis in original)

[RogerFGay]

Absolutely correct. To form a North American Union that would include the U.S., a Constitutional amendment would be required.

That's what I once thought and still believe you are correct in theory. I was absolutely shocked to learn that US administrations regularly bypass every democratic mechanism and create international agreements that then operate with the force of a treaty. (It took some time for me to get why we didn't sign so many treaties, but were enforcing them anyway.) Before that, it shocked me to learn that treaties trump - not only statute in the US, but the Constitution as well. It's been that way since the USSC decided to honor a bird safety treaty with the British many years ago over the right of land owners to hunt on their own land. Odd sounding, but true.

Rule by international agreement, in violation of the Constitution, without approval from Congress or the people is as common as candy today, and this has been going on for a while. And it is a world-wide problem. The EU is setting itself up the same way. You may recall that a proposed EU Constitution was defeated by public referrendum. So, after that, heads of state agreed to it anyway, without consent.

US taxpayers pay the cost of these international agreements all the time as well as accepting the loss of freedom associated with them. It's the old taxation without representation thing all over again plus everything else leading back to pre-American Revolution days.

[RogerFGay]

Why you needn't lose sleep over a "North American Union" (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=an_open_letter_to_a_worried_p atriot_why_you_neednt_lose_sleep_over_a_north_amer ican_union&ns=MichaelMedved&dt=05/09/2007&page=1)

That wasn't the source for either link that I posted here, and there are many more related video links at YouTube. Now please don't change the subject by referring to something odd you've seen on YouTube. We all know that there is a wide variety of offerings there.

[garlicguy]

Now please don't change the subject by referring to something odd you've seen on YouTube.

Roger, may I remind you that this is Tex you're addressing here? Which makes your request a bit like asking for rain on the Moon (where he hangs out), don't you see? :evilgrin:

[Rhino]

That wasn't the source for either link that I posted here...He never said it was.

[RogerFGay]

He never said it was.

Then his intended point is in the Twilight zone.

[RogerFGay]

The US no longer operates according to the Constitution. Democracy is dead.

[RogerFGay]

Roger, may I remind you that this is Tex you're addressing here? Which makes your request a bit like asking for rain on the Moon (where he hangs out), don't you see? :evilgrin:

Real Texans are fear'd of gobment.

[garlicguy]

With the originator's concurrence, could this be moved to Fantasy FootPaul?

Ron Paul is the only candidate to address this issue, and it is neither Science Nor Fiction.

Whatya' say Roger, Rhino?

[Rhino]

It's fiction, and the other threads about it are here.

If Ron Paul claimed an endorsement from Elvis, that would be here too. Well, maybe.

[Timberwolf]

Soy & homosexuality (http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-553465.html)

Uh, Tex...maybe you oughta READ what is stated in the WND article concerning the matter.

Soy IS feminizing because it is extremely high in phytoESTROGENs...estrogen, in high doses in the male body, suppresses the testosterone...you know, the hormone that makes men masculine. If that hormonal response is suppressed, why would anyone be surprised if that man became "feminine"?

Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Deserves a bit more investigation, wouldn't you say?

Or are you the be all and end all to human nutrition and know everything about how certain nutrients/foods affect our bodies & their development?

I'd wager *I* know just a little bit more about such things than you, and what is mentioned in that link does make sense, whether it is found to be borne out by further study or not. But, I'm not so arrogant and conceited that I would dare claim to know everything about the human body...because NO ONE does.

Don't jump to conclusions because everyone knows "even a broken clock (in this instance WND) is right twice a day"...and don't put words in my mouth either, Tex (that does seem to be your MO). I'm not saying this guy is right, I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying soy is high in phytoestrogen and, if given to infants in high doses (soy milk as a substitute because cow's milk is the suspected source of colic), it MIGHT have an effect on the development of that child's brain and how he perceives the world.

Hormones are extremely powerful chemicals...if you doubt this just disagree with a woman suffering the ills of PMS...I double-dog-dare ya.

[RogerFGay]

Speaking of "An Inconvinient Truth" (which I just mentioned in another thread) and all the school children who are being forced to watch it - man ... so few people pay attention to what's going on. This is part of a pattern of indoctrinating people to the one world government idea. The political agenda is to shift money to an unregulated regulatory body so they have power and national governments lose power. This is going on in a variety of ways everywhere in the world ... as a matter of fact.

Or are you going to claim that Al Gore doesn't exist?

[JOEVIKING]

Soy & homosexuality (http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-553465.html)

Uh, Tex...maybe you oughta READ what is stated in the WND article concerning the matter.




Who's Tex???

[Naturalized-Texan]

That wasn't the source for either link that I posted here, and there are many more related video links at YouTube. Now please don't change the subject by referring to something odd you've seen on YouTube. We all know that there is a wide variety of offerings there.
What a maroon! What kind of idiot are you? The link I posted had nothing to do with YouTube. :tinhat: :rolleyes: :trollhook:

[Naturalized-Texan]

I quit reading WND years ago after I discovered that Joe Farah was just another of those kooky conspiracy theory nutbags with no credibility.

[RogerFGay]

It's fiction, and the other threads about it are here.

Of course, since all the major networks have been discussing it; it will eventually be renamed and repackaged (in the marketing sense).

[Timberwolf]

I quit reading WND years ago after I discovered that Joe Farah was just another of those kooky conspiracy theory nutbags with no credibility.
So, IOW, you're ignoring the message by killing the messenger...Ooooh...good one. So terribly mature.

Did you know Asian women who eat a traditional Asian diet have next to NO symptoms when they go through menopause? But, those Asian women who eat an Americanized diet have nearly identical symptoms as American women? Gosh, why ever could THAT be? It's because the Asian diet consists of foods high in phytoestrogens...and those compounds have a DEFINITE effect on the human body.

Now, put 100x as much estrogen in an infant MALE body (you know, while it's developing after birth) via soy milk. What do you THINK is gonna happen? Gee whiz, maybe that boy will become a bit more feminine because the estrogen is suppressing the testosterone in his body.

As I said before, it may turn out to be absolutely nothing, but it merits more investigation. You are a fool to dismiss it out-of-hand from a position of ignorance.

[Sarah]

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5710/nu1lj5.jpg

[Sarah]

Did you know Asian women who eat a traditional Asian diet have next to NO symptoms when they go through menopause? But, those Asian women who eat an Americanized diet have nearly identical symptoms as American women? Gosh, why ever could THAT be? It's because the Asian diet consists of foods high in phytoestrogens...and those compounds have a DEFINITE effect on the human body.
Which Asian food would this be? It is widely varied and some of it is as healthy as a big mac.

[CzechPrince]

I'm not saying it will happen, but in reality it would not take amending the constitution. Just look at the EU. Do you think all of those people in all of those nation states had a say in it?

[CzechPrince]

Soy & homosexuality (http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-553465.html)

Uh, Tex...maybe you oughta READ what is stated in the WND article concerning the matter.

Soy IS feminizing because it is extremely high in phytoESTROGENs...estrogen, in high doses in the male body, suppresses the testosterone...you know, the hormone that makes men masculine. If that hormonal response is suppressed, why would anyone be surprised if that man became "feminine"?


Deserves a bit more investigation, wouldn't you say?

Or are you the be all and end all to human nutrition and know everything about how certain nutrients/foods affect our bodies & their development?

I'd wager *I* know just a little bit more about such things than you, and what is mentioned in that link does make sense, whether it is found to be borne out by further study or not. But, I'm not so arrogant and conceited that I would dare claim to know everything about the human body...because NO ONE does.

Don't jump to conclusions because everyone knows "even a broken clock (in this instance WND) is right twice a day"...and don't put words in my mouth either, Tex (that does seem to be your MO). I'm not saying this guy is right, I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying soy is high in phytoestrogen and, if given to infants in high doses (soy milk as a substitute because cow's milk is the suspected source of colic), it MIGHT have an effect on the development of that child's brain and how he perceives the world.

Hormones are extremely powerful chemicals...if you doubt this just disagree with a woman suffering the ills of PMS...I double-dog-dare ya.

LOL. I don't think a soy product ever made a person a homosexual. Take a basic psychology class, and you'll never here soy come up one time. If that's the case, every straight guy would never eat an Asian food product. Further, I've never read any commentary on a homosexual, male or female, state that their mother gave them huge amounts of soy when young which made them that way.

[RogerFGay]

It's fiction, and the other threads about it are here.

Is this just objection to the term, "North American Union." There is no NAU formally defined like an exact equivalent to the EU. But this is a term now rather commonly used as an umbrella for what we have and what is being created. I don't mind using the term because I am familiar with the way the EU was built and how it is still being developed. Agreements and treaties are the primary mechanisms.

An obvious difference at this point is that there isn't an NAU parliament. That's something one can either complain about or complain about in another way. Either you accept the integration steps that have and continue to take place for the reasons stated about why it's being done - free trade, peace and security, etc., but want to complain about the lack of democratic process. Or your against the whole thing and want to complain that they should slow down, back up, and maybe put up fences between the US, Mexico, and Canada.

In any case, it's a real issue related to big political changes that are taking place.

[Rhino]

Is this just objection to the term, "North American Union."No. That was discussed in the other threads. There is no NAU, nor is there any effort underway to start one, secret conspiracy or otherwise. That doesn't mean there aren't people who desire it, or that it can't happen in the future. It just isn't happening now. I suggest you read the other threads on this.

[ThomasMore]

I can't see why soy would make guys homosexual, but Japanese tradition holds that if you want to stop a cheating husband, feed him lots of tofu. The soybean curd is loaded with phytoestrogens, and it is supposed to shut down male libido and performance.

I am highly intolerant of milk and milk products, so for several years I drank soy milk as a substitute. Needless to say, upon receiving that news I stopped drinking it.

Many homosexuals are obsessed with sex, so I would think soy with its natural libido depression would be just the WRONG thing for them to eat. Viagra in reverse. "Die-agra?"

---

On the other hand, there was that story last year about a bunch of deviants getting their jollies by being castrated (http://www.courttv.com/trials/castration/041106_ctv.html).

Can anyone say "neuticles (http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html)?"

[RogerFGay]

No. That was discussed in the other threads. There is no NAU, nor is there any effort underway to start one, secret conspiracy or otherwise. That doesn't mean there aren't people who desire it, or that it can't happen in the future. It just isn't happening now. I suggest you read the other threads on this.

I'm sure we have free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico (although Mexico came later after I left the US and I'm not so up to speed on that). This free trade zone is an economic union. Comparing to the EU, there are still EU states that use their own currency. Credible news sources such as CNN's Lou Dobbs report discussions on a common currency for North America.

Economic unions may mean much more than you realize. There must be corresponding aggreement and alignment of laws and policies and standards in a whole wide range of areas, as well as open border, transportation, logistics, etc. What's going on in North America is not the same as simply allowing trade. It is a much more integrated zone than that.

Man .... I remember chatting with people in the US who thought the EU was dead .... while it was heading directly and intentionally toward super-state status. This is even more amazing that there are Americans who don't know what's going on in America.

[RogerFGay]

With the originator's concurrence, could this be moved to Fantasy FootPaul?

Ron Paul is the only candidate to address this issue, and it is neither Science Nor Fiction.

Whatya' say Roger, Rhino?

I guess any way it goes, it'll be in an odd and rather inappropriate place since the admin. doesn't get it. I didn't know that Ron Paul had been discussing it. Good for him. But how true is it that he's the only candidate? I suppose there are some perspectives that say it's 100% so, but aren't some candidates discussing related issues such as immigration, free trade, and (lying about) their support for the US Constitution? I mean, just because they're lying, doesn't mean they aren't talking about it. You just have to read between the slime.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The NAU is nothing more than a paranoid fantasy.

[Rhino]

I guess any way it goes, it'll be in an odd and rather inappropriate place since the admin. doesn't get it.Just because I may not agree with it does not mean I don't get it. In fact, if you read the other threads, you know I 'get it' quite well. The thread is about the NAU, not about Ron Paul. That, quite simply, is why it's here. Do you get that? I suppose we could move it to the RP forum, since it fits somewhat with some of his other wacko theories. Then again, I could just make the RP forum a sub-forum of Twilight Zone, since one could make the argument that that fits too. But what difference would either one make?

[Teenager]

While the NAU doesn't exist on paper, it is certainly moving in that direction and it's spirit is certainly alive in people like George Soros and the Rockerfellers, among others. America is certainly following the footsteps of Europe. It's taking awhile, though, because of conservatism and rednecks like me.

Furthermore, that is why the illegals immigration is our #1 priority if we want to avoid the NAU. Second most important priority is to get the USA outta the UN.

[ColonialMarine0431]

I dunno if there is any plan for a NAU. Then again, if you'd told me that a Republican Prez would one day put forward a plan for blanket amnesty for illegal invaders, I'd of said you were loco.

[RogerFGay]

I dunno if there is any plan for a NAU. Then again, if you'd told me that a Republican Prez would one day put forward a plan for blanket amnesty for illegal invaders, I'd of said you were loco.

That's pretty much the zone we're in. Another couple election cycles and NAU will be out in the open. It's actually pretty much out in the open now, with spin, and with some journalist being very blunt about it.

I've already been through my chock and disbelief phase - been through all the stages of grief in politics. The US no longer operates as a Constitutional republic, according to formal definition. Not at all. I can understand the emotions of those who don't get that yet, or just can't yet accept it emotionally. I've been through it myself.

[Timberwolf]

A more fitting title for this country would be USSA - United Socialist States of America...and it's been that way a LOOOOOONG time. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a Socialist Republic.

Just my :2cents:

[gnome]

RogerFGay: Do you have a citation on that case where treaty law trumped US Constitution?

Did the USSC actually rule as such, or did they claim to be within the Constitution and you disagreed?

[garlicguy]

It's fiction...

Not everybody agrees. These poor deluded fools, for instance, who have been right (and on the right)more than any other group, seem to think the NAU is a very real threat to our national sovereignty. (http://www.jbs.org/node/3430)


For what it is worth, disbelief and apathy will be the end of the USA as we once knew it. I propose not to let that happen on my watch.

gg

[Timberwolf]

Man, citing the Birchers ain't gonna make ya any friends 'round here...:biggrin:

[garlicguy]

Man, citing the Birchers ain't gonna make ya any friends 'round here...:biggrin:

Actually, DoctorDoom claimed to have been a member at one time, as did one or two others. I mean this IS Free Conservatives, isn't it? They don't come much more conservative than JBS, and they support Ron Paul.

Besides, I am bound to present the truth as I know it, and let the chips fall where they may. [Unlike Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton and Obama - they're politicians you know....:biggrin:]

[RogerFGay]

One thing that's been lacking is an opposition response from state governments on states' rights.

I'd be missing an important thing if I didn't mention that both parties support the internationalization movement - also known as the One World Government thing. International conventions are created (with participation of the US State Dept.), agreements are reached, memos are written: then Congress writes the laws and state governors do not protest when the result is increased power of the fed at the expense of states rights. Not much protest on the loss of freedom either, because this is all stuff that politicians and the media do not care to inform the public about. Those who do protest the results because of the negative impact on their own lives are treated with disdain. They're the whistle blowers.

Oh crap! I meant to copy the text and post again, but ended up editing this post. It was a big one. The quote above isn't even from gnome. It's the only sentence remaining from the post that was here, written by me. This was just a follow up remark.

[RogerFGay]

RogerFGay: Do you have a citation on that case where treaty law trumped US Constitution?

A little more googling - I guess the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 and subsequent Migratory Bird Act was probably the subject of the dispute. It sounds right.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/ch7.html

Yet more googling - confirmed:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C01E1DB1E31E03ABC4851DFB266838B639EDE&oref=slogin

And read this page from google books
http://books.google.com/books?id=3u13OLgWYegC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=migratory+bird+treaty+supreme+court+holmes&source=web&ots=hq_hTKiQl2&sig=wvsQ0duEr4hUbVY5DGEuwQkDQfg

[RogerFGay]

RogerFGay: Do you have a citation on that case where treaty law trumped US Constitution?

(This may seem to come a little out of nowhere, since I accidentally deleted commentary above - see comment above about editing mistake.)

The history directly related to changing legal classification by shifting power to the fed is even more bizarre. At least the treaty thing is logically simple and easy to understand, regardless of the larger overall negative consequence. Changing the status of law under federal authority apparently has a history that goes back to USSC approval of interning citizens of Japanese decent during WWII. I still don't see any way to logically generalize this from the decision - but there's not really a direct path to where we are now exactly.

From this history (and other cases), courts set up new classifications of law that allowed the fed to enforce things that are banned by the Bill of Rights. Social and economic policy can apply to things like welfare and taxes, and it's easy enough to understand that rates and entitlements are set by political decisions that cannot be challenged successfully as civil rights violations. The best answer I can give regarding how there's any logical explanation as to how responding to a dire emergency to defend the country ends up as a much more general power to suspend constitutional rights is that the idea was transformed as the result of 1960s radicalism, and Roe v. Wade (1973), Brown v. The Board (1954), etc. The 60s provided a movement with a generally strong will to allow a much less bridled federal contol of things (based of course at least in part on issues that had been around for a while), and it effected legal precedent in following decades more than people realize. I suppose a much simpler explanation is just that if they can do it once, they can do it again (slippery slope).

I'm not sure I took enough time to explain that as well as I might. Hope I didn't add to the difficulty of understanding, but maybe I have.

[RogerFGay]

At least one piece of information from my lost post that I can quickly reproduce is a list of Hague conventions on private international law. This might be eye-opening to anyone who isn't aware that there are such things. It's a long list, and at the top is something I hadn't seen before - a statute. I haven't looked at it yet, but a statute?

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.listing

These things are created with participation from the US State Dept. and others and lead to changes in US law that are enforced in the states. This approach is so prevalent, as the de facto mechanism for creation of law, that it can be concluded that we no longer operate as a soveriegn nation.

Most of the links I had are now obsolete, but you can look at the international ones at the bottom of the following page and google on the titles.

http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/links.html

[Rhino]

STATUTE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW * 1)

The Governments of the countries hereinafter specified -

the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland;...We're not on there.

[RogerFGay]

We're not on there.

I haven't looked at the statute myself. That's new to me. There never was a statute before. It's probably a milestone event. Generally, from my out of date research, here's my general understanding of how things work.

Yep. We don't sign. We merely agree. The State Dept. writes a memo and Congress passes the laws. It's a big part of why so many people aren't aware of the level of internationalism we're involved in. Why so little debate, and no political accountability. Nor do I think do you get the full understanding of how much impact these things have on the structure of the system in the US, or even how much the laws have been effected.

There's a lot of private international law that actually has to do with international law; things that wouldn't make your eyebrow rise from reading about them. I personally don't think it's all bad and it would be difficult to imagine all the free trade and other international activities in our shrinking world without some international law and regulation. I'm not really an isolationist - which would be kindof a difficult thing for me to be seeing as how I've been living in another country for so long. I'm involved with a company here and I'd like to be doing business in my own country and trust that contracts are binding, etc.

The need for expansion of PRIVATE international law is an outgrowth of internationalization. Not just that there is more interaction between individuals, but a desire to create a level playing field etc. A desire to make mobility easier by reducing cultural differences. Mix the power involved to make changes that avoid checks and balances with corruption, and what you got is a big problem. So, what I'm mostly going on about at this point has much to do with the lack of knowledge people have about the process and its effect - and how much we have become internationalized - the lack of democracy involved. Al Gore is creating a place in history for himself by pushing for the UN to be in charge. He knows it's only a matter of time before people are more aware. When it happens, he'll take credit for it; like when he invented the internet and the environment.

[RogerFGay]

<a href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/01/new-essence-of-hillary-video-adapts-reagans-morning-in-america-to-morning-after-in-america-following-a-one-term-stand-with-hillary-clinton-reprising-the-two-term-stand-with-bill-clin/#comment-58382">Article at MND</a> says appearance is given that Al Gore would be Hillary's ideal running mate.

So here comes the One World Government politics of "man-made global warming." The US can't control the sun alone. Only the UN can do that. It's time for everyone to give up their freedom, their wealth, and their national identity — really really as fast as possible.

[RogerFGay]

NAFTA and the Amero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

The Amero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFUo92FVCG8

[RogerFGay]

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Late-Great-U-S-Coming-Merger/dp/0979045142">The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada (Hardcover)</a>

[gnome]

A little more googling - I guess the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 and subsequent Migratory Bird Act was probably the subject of the dispute. It sounds right.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/ch7.html

Yet more googling - confirmed:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C01E1DB1E31E03ABC4851DFB266838B639EDE&oref=slogin

And read this page from google books
http://books.google.com/books?id=3u13OLgWYegC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=migratory+bird+treaty+supreme+court+holmes&source=web&ots=hq_hTKiQl2&sig=wvsQ0duEr4hUbVY5DGEuwQkDQfg

That is an interesting and provocative case... but I think it falls short of how you characterize it. In Justice Holmes' own words, he said that "the treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution."

This is a long way from ruling that treaties have a legal force that supersedes the Constitution--in fact, it seems to affirm the opposite.

[RogerFGay]

Wierd but interesting analysis gnome. Holmes took a very strong political stand in favor of the treaty, equating its purpose with an emergency survival effort like Al Gore's god-like effort to control the environment. He couldn't very well make a ruling for its constitutional acceptance by saying that it violates the constitution.

BTW: This case is recognized by constitutional scholars as setting the power of a treaty over those of individual constitutional rights; granting the fed. special police powers in relation to treaties. I didn't come up with that idea myself.

An even more bizarre piece of constitutional history has to do with the USSC decision to allow internment of US citizens of Japanese descent. I've read the case ( Korematsu v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States) ) and still don't see how it can blossom into a panacea for avoiding the Bill of Rights in favor of federal power. That wouldn't be my reading of it, but the USSC has seen it differently - a watershed for that type of thinking - if the Bill of Rights gets in the way, just ignore it.

It might be helpful if I add a little context. I began consulting textbooks and constitutional scholars regarding the use of rational basis review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review) of family law. Family law, as I've mentioned many times in articles and such, was reclassified by a US Appellate Court in the 1990s, (POPSv Gardner, 998 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 24. 1993)) from civil law to social policy. This meant the disappearance of civil rights from family law. From a conservative perspective, this is something that seems terribly unnacceptable, and I do not believe that many people imagine it is possible - and therefore have a very difficult time believing that such a thing has or ever could happen.

I don't know what your background is in law, but there are now three levels of constitutional review - not just one that most people imagine (I think that most people imagine a particular thing because I've been discussing this with people for years). The Wikipedia entry linked in the last paragraph includes links to the other two levels of review in its first paragraph. I think most people imagine that strict scrutiny is always the way constitutional issues are decided by the courts. Not so. Not so at all. As the POPS case demonstrates, more areas of law are being dragged into lower levels of review, which means much less constitutional scrutiny and far more arbitrary government intrusion.

Noticed while looking for web references that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States">Wikipedia's "Judicial Review in the United States"</a> is out of date, so I left a comment on the discussion page.