Is Bush Siding With Mexican Killers?
Hat tip to TexasFred's for this:
When our president sides with an International Court over our law of the land, it should give the citizenry great pause to say the least.
I'm not a constitutional attorney, but when it comes to international law, it seems to me that our constitution would always trump every other law. But there's that pesky Article VI, paragraph two of the constitution:
I don't know about you, but that sort of makes my blood run cold when you stop and think of the globalists at the helm of power and what kind of treaties we are obliged to uphold.
Look at what's happening and NOT happening at our borders and how arrogant politicians want to pass an illigitimate "immigration" bill which will automatically legalize however many millions of illegal aliens now living here. They want this bill to have as little debate and exposure as possible and they're expressing anger at those who dare question them or their motives. Excuse me?! Who works for whom here?
Are there treaties with Mexico and Canada that we may not know much about? The actions of the president and congress makes one wonder.
Bush Sides With Mexican Killers Against U.S.There's more and you need to read the entire piece. You can access it here.
By Cliff Kincaid June 12, 2007 There's an old saying, "Don't mess with Texas." Well, Bush did.
The State Department's top legal adviser told international lawyers on June 6 that President Bush is so committed to the primacy of international law that he has taken his home state of Texas to court on behalf of a group of Mexican killers. The Mexicans had been sentenced to death for murdering U.S. citizens, including young children.
John B. Bellinger III, legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, cited the case, Mexico v. United States of America, in trying to convince the attorneys that the administration is doing what it can to enforce international law in U.S. courts.
In the case, Bush has come down on the same side as the U.N.'s International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled 14-1 on behalf of Mexico against the U.S. The ICJ was headed at the time by a judge from communist China, who also ruled against the U.S.
Bellinger's audience was gathered at The Hague, a city in the Netherlands which is home to over 100 international organizations, including the U.N.'s International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
Sworn in as the Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State on April 8, 2005, Bellinger is described by the State Department as "the principal adviser on all domestic and international law matters to the Department of State, the Foreign Service, and the diplomatic and consular posts abroad."
The Bellinger speech, designed to convince the pro-U.N. globalists in attendance that Bush is really on their side, should have been big news. Not only did he praise Bush for coming down on the side of foreign killers of Americans, in a major court case with international implications, but he demonstrated how far the administration is prepared to go to impress the "international community."
In a major disclosure, Bellinger said that Bush is currently seeking immediate Senate ratification of 35 different "treaty packages." He said these include the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a measure rejected by President Reagan and his U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. Bellinger didn't name any of the other "treaty packages" that the administration wants to push through. But a number of radical treaties are known to be pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, headed by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Joseph Biden.
Once again, it appears that Bush wants to ignore the concerns of conservatives in order to work with liberal Democrats and advance a controversial legislative agenda.
When our president sides with an International Court over our law of the land, it should give the citizenry great pause to say the least.
I'm not a constitutional attorney, but when it comes to international law, it seems to me that our constitution would always trump every other law. But there's that pesky Article VI, paragraph two of the constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
I don't know about you, but that sort of makes my blood run cold when you stop and think of the globalists at the helm of power and what kind of treaties we are obliged to uphold.
Look at what's happening and NOT happening at our borders and how arrogant politicians want to pass an illigitimate "immigration" bill which will automatically legalize however many millions of illegal aliens now living here. They want this bill to have as little debate and exposure as possible and they're expressing anger at those who dare question them or their motives. Excuse me?! Who works for whom here?
Are there treaties with Mexico and Canada that we may not know much about? The actions of the president and congress makes one wonder.
<< Home