Sen. Stan Jones - conspriacy theorist?

[Fat Tone]

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=164375

[KvHagedorn]

Well, isn't it convenient that anyone who challenges the mainstream can be called a crank and summarily ignored?

[Umfriend]

After his summary of how wrong it went in Europe I had enough of that nitwit. Is he really a libertarian? He should be ashamed of himslef and all libertarians should be as well.

[Umfriend]

Well, isn't it convenient that anyone who challenges the mainstream can be called a crank and summarily ignored?

Challeging mainstream? What, in the first 45 seconds of his speech, aside from that the UE-constitution was rejected, was actually true or sensible?

Oh I know, the fact that he does nto get invited often. Guess why?

[Dr Mordrid]

Being poorly informed on EU history isn't unexpected given how poorly Europe is covered here

Is he a conspiracy theorist? Judge for yourselves;

U.S. Govt. SPP homepage;

http://www.spp.gov/

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.

This trilateral initiative is premised on our security and our economic prosperity being mutually reinforcing. The SPP recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade.

The SPP builds upon, but is separate from, our long-standing trade and economic relationships. It energizes other aspects of our cooperative relations, such as the protection of our environment, our food supply, and our public health.

Looking forward, President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Fox have identified emergency management; influenza pandemics, including avian influenza; energy security; and safe and secure gateways (border security and facilitation) as key priorities for the SPP. The Leaders also announced the creation of North American Competitiveness Council to fully incorporate the private sector into the SPP process.

In his June, 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:

"NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.

This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements."

Pastor was a vice chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations task force that produced the report “Building a North American Union.”

Uppance: this "North American Union" is to be a super-regional political authority that could (read: would) override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues.

Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that “a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.”

The clear intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, something the average American would choke on if they knew about it.

Amero discussion page....

The "NAFTA Superhighway" tied to the SPP would run from Mexico through the continental US into Canada & Alaska;



NAFTA Superhighway editorial (PRO)....

NAFTA Superhighway editorial (CON)....

Well?

[cjolley]

...
The clear intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union
...

Totally impossible without a Constitutional Ammendment.

[Dr Mordrid]

Treaties break normal US jurisprudence all the time; limiting lawsuits & liability, setting commerce restrictions etc. By veiling this as "interstate commerce" they can sneak a lot of it in under the Constitutions Commerce Clause.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Also:

US Constitution, Article III, Section 2: "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

This means Congress could, if it wished to do so, remove the SPP treaty from the Supreme Courts jurisdiction by a simple majority vote.

Congress, through its oversight function, also has authority over mundane things like currency (including replacing dollars with "Amero's"), immigration etc. etc.

[cjolley]

Treaties are essentialy US laws under the constitution.
That ultimately makes them subject to review by SCOTUS.
The fact that they allow regulation of commerce under them is not a sign that SCOTUS does not have power of review if the ruling were to affect a more substantial right under the constitution.

For example, there is not the slightest chance that an administration could sign and the senate approve, a treaty giving some other country the right to try US citizen for for a crime committed in the US, in other words to bypass the constitutional protections of defendants by offloading them to other countries for trial, without review by SCOTUS.
SCOTUS would smack it down fast and hard.

[Dr Mordrid]

US Constitution, Article III, Section 2

Congress sets the jurisdiction rules. No jurisdiction, no SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction.

Appellate jurisdiction is the ability to hear cases brought to the Court from lower courts, usually a Federal circuit court or a State Supreme Court.

There could/would be a helluva fight, we hope, but it could be done.

[cjolley]

US Constitution, Article III, Section 2

Congress sets the jurisdiction rules. No jurisdiction, no SCOTUS appellate review.

So we could have a treaty that simply shipped off citizens for trial elsewhere with less strict trial rules?
Please don't give the Bush administration any more ideas.

Congress would have to pass a law taking SCOTUS's jurisdiction away from the treaty.
That will never happen, because the next congress, which would be composed of different people, would give review back to SCOTUS.

[Dr Mordrid]

Don't bet on it.

It's the internationalists that are pushing the SPP; liberal Dems, Rockefeller Republicans, "New World Order" types....basically 60% of the Senate & the same crew that made the border protection bill such a pain to get passed.

If you could get SPP through the House the Senate would probably pass it. All the more reason I hope the House stays "nationalist" (lots in both parties) as opposed to the crew of idiots in both parties in the Senate.

[cjolley]

...
It's the internationalists that are pushing the SPP; liberal Dems, Rockefeller Republicans, "New World Order" types....basically 60% of the Senate & the same crew that made the border protection bill such a pain to get passed.
...

I call BS.
You pointed to http://www.spp.gov/ and said it was a US gov site.
That is a Bush administration site.
They even have a Myths vs Facts page that claims you are wrong.
Is there some hidden clique of liberals in the Bush administration writing that site?

Personally, I have no opinion on SPP because I've never heard of it before.

[Dr Mordrid]

To the extent that the Commerce Dept. is part of the executive branch perhaps, but it's actually Commerce Dept. site.

Yes; they'll claim the particulars aren't as the critics say, but when the proponents talk to each other about their long term goals they say otherwise. Thank God for C-SPAN.

The things I massively disagree with Bush about are the SPP, immigration amnesty etc. There he's too much like his father. This in particular smells of the "slippery slope".

[cjolley]

To the extent that the Commerce Dept. is part of the executive branch perhaps, but it's actually Commerce Dept. site.

...

http://204.193.232.34/cgi-bin/doit.cgi?204:112:ca6ff65e72b6f38e4fe42ea2ba9cf9358ad6df26eae063a68a6e8f420a9ac897:245

I'm pretty sure that that "extent" would be 100%.

[KvHagedorn]

They can't even maintain their current road system. This is a power ploy by addle-brained rich dreamers on the coasts to disenfranchise hard-working farmers with real values by stealing their land and building a trillion dollar fool's dream with our own hard earned tax dollars. And guess who gets the ****ing contract to build a TOLL ROAD with OUR TAX DOLLARS? A company from SPAIN! I'm definitely voting against all Texas politicians who are for the Trans Texas Corridor.

What I would do is offer tax inscentives to railroads so they could double-and triple-track their mainlines. Usually they have enough right of way to do this anyhow, and fuel economy is far FAR greater with rail than with trucks. We are talking about all long-hauls, too.