Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese


Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The US Constitution Now has a Warning Label
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Online Discussion: Tracking new emerging diseases and the next pandemic; Now tracking the Aussie Flu.

The US Constitution Now has a Warning Label

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The US Constitution Now has a Warning Label
    Posted: June 08 2010 at 3:05pm
 
WHAT???  Just heard about this ..............
 
The US Constitution Now Has A Warning Label
 
 

 

June 05, 2010

Disclaimer on Constitution  Wilder publications

Via Michael: A&D Publishing of Radford, VA (aka Wilder Publishing) offers a copy of the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation which includes the following DISCLAIMER: (click to enlarge)   

http://righttruth.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c49a69e20133f037be2b970b-popup

 



This book is a product of it's time and does not represent the same values as if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race,gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.

Back to Top
mrmouse View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member


Joined: April 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mrmouse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2010 at 4:39pm
Now that's Progressivism in action! I guess there needs to be a warning label in todays Amerika because there's no mention of Social Justice for all mentioned by those evil framers of the US Constitution. After all, we're living in a world community now, and there's no need for such a sovereign document that grants individual freedoms. The United States Constitution is all that stands between us, and global governance.

Back to Top
mrmouse View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member


Joined: April 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mrmouse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2010 at 9:36am
Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2010 at 6:27pm
 
Agenda 21

U.N. Charter or U.S. Constitution?
By Bud Landry
Apr 2, 2004 - 9:33:00 AM


Do the American people want to live by our U.S. Constitution or do they want to live by the U.N. Charter? Do the American people have a choice? Which document rules our lives today? There are two sides in this and both are equally determined they are right. We the people must decide and soon.

On one side the Supreme Court has said, Miranda vs Arizona "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

The other side says, in Sei Fujii vs California the court has declared, "The Charter [of the United Nations] has become the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In Reid vs Covert, the Supreme Court has said, "This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."

On April 12, 1952 Secretary of State John Foster Dulles [CFR] said, "Treaties make International law and also make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for Congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, where as treaty law can overide the Constitution."

Former American Bar Assoc. President, Carl B. Rix, in Senate testimony on May 11, 1955 summarized the destruction of our Constitution thusly; Congress is no longer bound by its Constitutional system of delegated power. Its only test is under the obligatory power to promote human rights (not the inalienable rights secured for us by our Constitution) in these fields of endeavor. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural. These powers are found in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations. Congress may now legislate as an uninhibited body with no shackles of delegated powers under the Constitution.

On April 7, 1953, the U.S. Attorney General, CFR, also took the position that actions under Art. 55 and 56 of the UN charter is obligatory. He said in testimony that; "A notable example is Articles 55 nd 56 of the UN charter obligating the parties to promote stated social and economic objectives and pledging themselves to take joint and separate action for the achievement of these purposes.

Three of our Supreme Court Justices have now said that they will take into consideration the laws of other countries when making decisions on this countries laws. These Justices are all members of the CFR.

Our Constitution protects the rights of private property. Our government is now taking our lands and putting it under the control of the United Nations  without a hearing for the people or the permission of Congress.

Our Constitution protects our homes from government invasion without a warrant. There are now laws being written that will permit the government to sneak and peek into our homes and maybe tell us months later.

Our government is now paying our tax dollars to ship our jobs overseas to third world countries as is obligatory under the UN Charter.

Our presidents have taken us into the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, and first Gulf War without the permission of Congress and called them police actions. These police actions were all taken under the cover of the United Nations. The present war in Iraq, under our current president, CFR, was said to be to enforce the laws and rulings of the United Nations.

To what extent does the United Nations Charter control the lives of the American people? Are we now governed by the UN Charter or are we governed by our Constitution? Do the American people still have what it takes to control our lives and our countries policies? Are our top leaders so dumb as to not see what is happening or are they the cause of what is going on?

If the people will only take the time to get a copy of the UN charter along with copies of "The International Bill of Rights" which consists of:

  1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR];
  2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] and
  3. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR].

In these three things you will find many answers to what is happening all over the world today. These are available on the Internet.

Related Documents:

Note: This article was picked up in the May 2004 print edition of The eco-logic Powerhouse, and in its April 15, 2004 edition of eco-logic online.


© Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star



Back to Top
Turboguy View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5499
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Turboguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2010 at 6:58pm
I thought the Constitution was a living document open to any interpretation anyone wants to have. Heck, we don't even need one anymore!

Oh wait, that's just the opinion of the latest disaster to befall the Constitution under the current administration. When she hits the SCOTUS I can only imagine the moronic edicts she'll crap out.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2010 at 10:27pm
This is all very sad, isn't it.  Historic Times
Back to Top
Turboguy View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5499
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Turboguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2010 at 7:13am
I'm not even surprised by the crap coming from Obama anymore...
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
Back to Top
Mary008 View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 5769
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mary008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2010 at 11:00am
.
 
Do the American people want to live by our U.S. Constitution or do they want to live by the U.N. Charter?
 
..............................................
 
 
 
 
 
Many areas of the UN Charter are...
 
A case of idealism versus reality.
 
States wish it were a more perfect charter.  
 
Due to the various cultures of our world, it would be amazingly difficult
 
to get a consensus on a document that could govern with legal force
 
the affairs of all the member governments.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not to worry...

That below was in 1955....    The hopeful years.  
 
The U.S. Attorney General  then  'took a position.'   on the  'objectives' of  Articles 55 and 56-

Articles  55 & 56  look like guidelines ... happy talk.  
 

On April 7, 1953, the U.S. Attorney General, CFR, also took the position that
 
actions under Art. 55 and 56 of the UN charter is obligatory.
He said in testimony that; "A notable example is Articles 55 and 56
of the UN charter obligating the parties to promote stated social and
economic objectives and pledging themselves to take joint and separate
action for the achievement of these purposes.
 
 
All members do not take it seriously...  ( North Korea for one )
 
 

From-
 
 

Widely recognized member of the UN.    North Korea   is not recognized
 
 
by four UN members:
 

Japan,

France,

Estonia and

South Korea.
 
Add me to that list.
 
 

Current UN member
 
North Korea

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

Democratic People's Republic of Korea 
 
Date of admission- 17 September 1991
....................................................................
 
 
 

Article 55
.......................

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being
which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations
based for respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination
of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
 
(a) higher standards of living, full employment,
and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
 
(b) solutions of international economic, social, health,
and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation and
 
(c) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
 

Article 56
........................
 
 
All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in
cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes
set forth in Article 55.
 
 
Article 60
.....................
 
 
Responsibility for the discharge of the functions of the Organization
set forth in this Chapter shall be vested in the General Assembly and,
under the authority of the General Assembly in the Economic and Social
Council, which shall have for this purpose all the powers set forth in Chapter X.
 
 
from-
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS (1945)

CHAPTER IX
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COOPERATION
 
 
 
..............
 
 
Mary008
Back to Top
Mary008 View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 5769
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mary008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2010 at 11:17am
.
 
 
 
 
The UN won't be overtaking anyone's constitution any time soon.
 
Non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter.
.........................................................................................................
 
 

Read in full here-

Disarmament Diplomacy
Issue No. 80, Autumn 2005
Just War and the Responsibility to Protect: Developments in UN Peacekeeping
and Humanitarian Intervention
Hugh Beach
© 2005 The Acronym Institute.
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd80/80hb.htm
 
excerpt-
 
 
Article 2.7 of the UN Charter says bluntly that nothing contained in it shall
authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of any state.
 
But it half contradicts itself by saying that this principle shall not prejudice
the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the Charter.
 
( So if enough countries are together on some Horror... they may try to stop it. )
 
Chapter VII, as we have seen, relates not only to acts of aggression but also to threats to the peace and breaches of the peace, generally assumed to be international threats. Thus UN Security Council Resolution 688 of 5 April 1991 described Saddam Hussein's repression of the Kurds and Shias as a threat to international peace and security. It was on the strength of this resolution that France, followed by the US, Britain and a number of other countries, took action with ground and air forces to compel the Iraqi regime to desist. But the supposed threat to international security was largely a pretext.
 
On 3 December 1992 the Security Council, in Resolution 794, broke new ground by deciding to intervene in Somalia citing strictly humanitarian purposes. There was not even any pretence of consent by the government of Somalia because no such government existed. There was negligible spill-over to other countries in the form of refugees. The plight of the Somali people was the sole reason given for invoking Chapter VII of the Charter, authorising the use of "all necessary means" to establish a "secure environment for humanitarian relief". In practice this meant taking sides and acting with far from minimal force. Sadly the mission was unsuccessful. A ferocious and chaotic battle in Mogadishu on 3 October led to the death of eighteen American rangers. Public and congressional outrage, especially at the sight of a dead and mutilated soldier being dragged through the streets, led the US administration to reconsider its entire policy on peacekeeping and peace enforcement. President Clinton announced that US troops would pull out by 31 March 1994 regardless of the situation on the ground. A year later the entire UN force was withdrawn having achieved no useful purpose whatsoever.
 

In a further example, the Security Council authorised the despatch of a multinational force to Haiti in July 1994, following some thuggish activity in Port-au-Prince. The force was to be led by the United States and supported by a small number of Caribbean troops. It was authorised by UNSC Resolution 940, which cited Chapter VII of the Charter and referred to the use of "all necessary means" in order to "facilitate the departure from Haiti" of the oppressive regime. In the end the threat of a US-led invasion proved enough to secure regime change and no serious resistance was encountered.
 

The task of the UN forces in Bosnia was to secure the delivery of humanitarian goods and services and to protect civilians in declared "safe havens". The deployment of UNPROFOR was carried out, initially at least, with the consent of the "host" states (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia). But its mandate was subsequently extended to include, for example, deterrence of attacks on safe havens and the use of air power to that end, with the clear invocation of Chapter VII. The NATO air strikes from 30 August to 14 September 1995 was justified (if somewhat tenuously) under UNSC Resolutions 836 and 844 of June 1993. The strikes, which came after three years of the siege of Sarajevo, played a large part in securing Serb participation in peace talks that culminated in the Dayton Accord that brought the war in Bosnia to an end.
  
.....................
 
 
 
 
Mary008
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down