Meredith~ Thanks for your thoughts past on here. I have trying to get these TWO vast and major -- yet remarkably simple -- ideas across to an immense body of people for a quite long period of time. We have been trained to avoid the truth and covet the imagined! Here are two dynamite CURRENT and flagrant endorsements of the ongoing retention of both the united States of America as well as the socialist corporations dependence upon its continued existence FOR ITS OWN! I will pass it on down the line in hopes that a few “Get It”, and in particular a friend who I believe would like to dearly believe it is so but the overwhelming odds against its recognition over the years has scared him off! I would as well appreciate your forwarding to me the full text of the article as I do really feel it is the kind of treasured find vitally needed to react to the massive usurpation going on contrary to its clear message! The Negro is president of that corporation which operates off Article I, Section 7, Clause 17 and has been unlawfully, immorally, and piratically to twice usurp power; first from the document from which it claims its operational powers, and then from the sovereign people who LOANED A LIMITED POWER SUPPLY TEMPORARILY to those enacting the original clandestinely drawn constitution ostensibly in favor of only those sovereign people from whom ONLY power could be drawn, is perfect for the pretense of it all! As is pointed out in your information, the stolen power through above Article – nebulous unto itself – could not be turned against its provider(s). To think otherwise is a prime example of convoluted thinking based strictly on “might makes right” and go along to get along, i.e. fear and uncertainty! My coveted axiom, “A thing can not both be and not be at the same time” gets a remarkable amount of play in these matters! What morons can accept the premise that a constitution would be drawn not to allow it to shoot itself in the foot, but to blow its own brains out by allowing a simple step such as a treaty to supercede the basis of not only the constitution of a compact, but the existence of an entire body of several independent nations giving marginal and extremely limited existence to the body it would assemble??! If, as is the case, the UNITED STATES, INC. was drawn to govern the territories and D. C. ONLY, and that body there governing it was never, as it is not now, assembled under the Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America and the Articles of Confederation, what niggardly and specious logic foresees authority for it to REACH BACK TO THE UNITED States of America and perpetrate bogus treaties, laws, and the like upon THEM??! Oh, and the indication is made stunningly clear here that the deliberating body in your information was adamant that the Several united States STILL EXIST , is it not! ~Hal~ --- On Sun, 9/27/09, Meredith <[email protected]> wrote: From: Meredith <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: " Treaties..ONLY enforceable within territories...not a sovereign State" To: "Hal" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 7:50 AM Hi Hal Read your piece. You might give your 'territorial' friend this info on recent s.court ruling Blessings Meredith --- On Sun, 7/27/08, Meredith <[email protected]> wrote: From: Meredith <[email protected]> Subject: " Treaties..ONLY enforceable within territories...not a sovereign State" To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 2:33 AM .....my short re-cap of the attached two page article: When the International Court of Justice heard Medellin's case .. ( a Mexican national found guilty, and who was on death row in Texas, for the rape and murder of two girl's in 1994 ) ..... the World Court issued its ruling against the United States. Further, they demanded not only Medellin but also fifty other Mexican nationals on death row in our country , all receive new trials ! Our president, George Bush, then stated via a memorandum to our Attorney Gen., " I have determined , pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the Laws of the United States of America, that the United States will discharge its International obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice the case concerning Avena ( Mexico vs United States of America) by having State courts give effect to the decision in accordance with the general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision." Our supreme court of the United States heard Medellin v.Texas ( 06-984) last October 2007. They deliberated upon two questions. Was it in the presidents constitutional authority for him to say that the states must comply with these treaty obligations ? and..... Our states are bound by the Constitution. Must the states honor U.S. treaties that were duly ratified ? The supreme court ruled, with a 6 to 3 decision, in favor of Texas , March 25 '08 ! Chief Justice Roberts wrote: " An agreement to abide by the result of an international adjudication can be a treaty obligation like any other, so long as the agreement is consistent with the Constitution" J. Roberts further stated: "The U.S. has the authority to enter into treaties; However those treaties are ONLY enforceable within the territories of the United States... and not within the boundaries of a sovereign State." Meredith
