Update on Bricker Amendment
The article sent out was about the Bricker Amendment, which never passed due to all out opposition by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a covert internationalist from the beginning, and a registered Democrat right before he switched to Republican to run for President in 1952. (See “The Politician” by Robert Welch, and “A Choice, Not An Echo”, by Phyllis Schlafly.)
The paragraph left out by me, which should have appeared before the article by Justin Raimondo, -- was about the US Supreme Court decision, Reid vs. Covert, in 1957, which stated that no treaty could ever supercede or nullify the Bill of Rights. Any attempt to tax Americans from an international agency under some treaty, would violate the Bill of Rights on several fronts, as well as be a treasonous abrogation of American Sovereignty – something which couldn’t POSSIBLY be in the framer’s original intent.
Of course, Obama and those behind him want a New World Government with a new world currency, so they are trying to pretend to respect the framer’s original intent, while working to nullify it. The battle, clearly, is on again regarding treaties and the Constitution, which is why I sent that ewire, and this one out.
For a better article than the one I sent out, see Dr. Edwin Vieira’s article, “A Primer on Martial Law”, which mentions Reid v. Covert, found here:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin198.htm
Jim Condit, Jr.
With the new onslaught of treaties and awareness growing of govt. intrusion into liberties, this issue will again create a situation to bring forward legislation dealing with treaties trumping the Constitution. Before the 30’s it wasn’t an issue since people knew a clause in the Constitution couldn’t trump the document. After a huge wave of immigration and the depression the onslaught against the protections guaranteed in the Constitution were accelerated. The bankstas know the MO, create a financial disaster and we can get anything we want from the desperate morons. After WWII, which was a scam, the defenders of liberty wanted to try to stop further encroachment on the liberty. The historical record and original intent is on the side of the Constitution trumping Article VI, not the reverse. It’s only logical that a clause within the Constitution cannot trump the Constitution? If it did it would clearly state that a treaty would make the Constitution null and void.Treaties are powerful agreements, but they cannot trump the document that allows them to exist. GP