And does not repeal it or get out of the UN !

3 short well stated pages for those that want to know what will happen.

http://www.prophezine.com/search/database/is5.8.html

http://www.prophezine.com/search/database/is5.7.html

http://www.prophezine.com/search/database/is5.6.html

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000

Answers

link

link

Link

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.

Any ideas on how to confirm or debunk this?

Keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), April 07, 2000.

Thanks for the post, awdragon.

It's a good thing that the UN/NWO conspiracy is just another load of shit promoted by fearmongering, survival-prep salesmen. Otherwise, I might have to actually worry about it.

I'm sure it didn't hurt, though, when I sent in my gun registration form under the name of Heywood Jablowme. ;-)

Got tinfoil?

Jimmy

-- Jimmy Splinters (inthe@dark.com), April 07, 2000.

Get out the Tinfoil Hats! I sure can't find this stuff in the current edition of the United States Code or anything related to it.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 07, 2000.

The Executive Orders are for real. You'd better hope that the other stuff isn't.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 07, 2000.

You can follow direction on the pages linked; says year 1982, vol 9, or you can search the Federal Register, go to the UN Home page and search the charter & Treaties. Or any law lib.

UHUH has laws lib links on the bottom of this link (not sure ot the vol dates.) Has lots of ref materials also.

UHUH

You can also say "I can't fine it on my computer and not research it ". Thats up to you. Alot of people are not concern about whats going on in the US, then again others are.

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.

>And does not repeal it ...

*sigh* Once again, this sort of propaganda emerges. I debunked some of it several times on the old TB2K. Look it up if you care ... or just keep a few principles in mind:

Whenever you research laws, EOs, and such, remember that later laws and EOs can amend, repeal or revoke earlier ones.

Also, keep in mind that often people presenting anti-UN or NWO or anti-Clinton arguments refer to old laws and EOs that have been amended, repealed or revoked _without telling you_ that those laws and EOs have been so amended, repealed or revoked.

Now, sometimes the latter may be due to carelessness on the part of those with a zeal to persuade, but I've found that sometimes those advocates seem all too willing to knowingly ignore the fact that the laws or EOs they reference are out of date even after being specifically informed of that. A year or so ago, I sent the author of one of the anti-Clinton articles posted on the Web a detailed note about the EOs he listed, showing that almost all of them had been revoked over 25 years ago. His response to me was angry, and he hasn't removed or revised the out-of-date list from the posted article.

Back to the current thread -- If you read the third page listed above by awdragon, FEMA Executive Orders List by Michael F. Rivero at http://www.prophezine.com/search/database/is5.6.html you will see a list of EO numbers. including numbers 10995 and 10997-11005. Guess what? It's almost exactly the same list of revoked-over-a-quarter-century-ago EOs that I've seen in other articles. I'll give this author credit for having the integrity to tell the reader to verify what he presents, but why didn't he do that himself before re-publishing this out-of-date stuff?

If you go to the first reference listed above by awdragon, Public Law 87-297 by John DiNardo at http://www.prophezine.com/search/database/is5.8.html you will find that the author instructs the reader to "Ask for a copy of VOLUME 9 of the 1982 EDITION [*not* the current, replacement edition] of the U.S. CODE." Why doesn't he refer to a current copy of the U.S. Code? Could it be that the law to which his artical title refers _is no longer in effect because it's been repealed or amended out of existence_? Somebody else check it out -- I'm tired of chasing after this sort of junk reference.

DiNardo claims "This law is taught and explained in the National War College, and the various U.S. Armed Forces Academies." Oh, yeah? DiNardo is claiming that the armed forces academies are teaching a law that is no longer part of the U.S. Code? How credible does that sound?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

It said 18 amendments , I'm still checking it my self.

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.

NSP I understand where you are coming from. I was told I have verification this morning so I posted it. My own search on Thomas gets "transfered or omitted" or

Public law out of range of Thomas collection

It appears that the public law you're trying to retrieve is too old to be in the Library of Congress Thomas system.

They may only put so much up I guess. But if its incorpated or added to another section I'll find it.

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.

The Executive Orders on FEMA, I'm not worried about they are available in 10 or more places, there are a few that were updated, I saw those on the White House Publications list & FAS and Fed Reg. The consification is what bothers me; the 2nd Amendment is the only thing that keeps America & the Constitution together. Our National Sovereignty is at risk.

I can leaves these till I find the verifiers for above.

UN Force Link UN RRF

UN Disarmament Link to UN Disarment Commission and yes we are under the UN and Treaties that superceed our laws according to the Supreme Court.

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 08, 2000.

Oh forgot this from sightings last year, I guess they took a picture of it after they found it.

Link

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 08, 2000.

If you'd like a like to the section of the US Code referenced in awdragon's post, go to http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/ch35.html

This references the material in the "link" given above. The statute in question, 22 USC 2551, et.seq. deals with international arms control and disarmerment. Much of it has been repealed. I see nothing even vaguely sinister in the remaining portions of the statute.

For better or worse, I am an attorney. In reading things such as Awdragon's post, I've developed a sure "tinfoil test." Anyone or anything that cites by public law number is most probably far out to lunch. If you can't find the codification in the US Code, this means that the reference in question is either out of context, repeals, modified (by case law or subsequent statute) or otherwise out of date.

Additionally, all executive orders and CFR cites tie back to the Code. Generally, to properly interpret such a cite, the citation to the enabling section of the code should also be provided.

In other words, no matter how sincere he may be, Awdragon has had the wool pulled over his eyes. What was it that P.T. Barnum said was born every minute?

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 08, 2000.

Perhaps this statutory cite will calm awdragon:

22 USC 2573. Policy formulation

(b) Prohibition No action shall be taken pursuant to this chapter or any other Act that would obligate the United States to reduce or limit the Armed Forces or armaments of the United States in a militarily significant manner, except pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President set forth in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution or unless authorized by the enactment of further affirmative legislation by the Congress of the United States.

(c) Statutory construction Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any policy or action by any Government agency which would interfere with, restrict, or prohibit the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms by an individual for the lawful purpose of personal defense, sport, recreation, education, or training.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 08, 2000.

To E. H. Porter and "No Spam Please" -- thank you for your cool, clear-headed rebuttal.

-- Very (Grateful@still.here), April 08, 2000.

Well on the 22-2573 I would agree with the exception of TREATIES ! I did find the "Public Law 87 - 297 " and it seems he was right. Notes on Title 22, Section 2571 SOURCE (Pub. L. 87-297, title III, Sec. 301, formerly Sec. 31, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 633; Pub. L. 88-186, Sec. 5, Nov. 26, 1963, 77 Stat. 342; Pub. L. 95-108, Sec. 3, Aug. 17, 1977, 91 Stat. 871; Pub. L. 97-339, Sec. 4, Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1636; Pub. L. 103-236, title VII, Sec. 719(c), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 501; renumbered Sec. 301 and amended Pub. L. 105-277, div. G, subdiv. A, title XII, Sec. 1223(6), (21), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-769, 2681-772.) -MISC1- established under section 2575 of this title'' after ''other Government agencies'', and substituted ''The authority of the Secretary under this chapter with respect to research, development, and other studies concerning arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament shall be limited to participation in the following:'' for ''The authority of the Director with respect to research, development, and other studies shall be limited to participation in the following insofar as they relate to arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament:''. Amendments 1998 - Pub. L. 105-277, Sec. 1223

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1998 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 105-277 effective on earlier of Apr. 1, 1999, or date of abolition of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency pursuant to reorganization plan described in section 6601 of this title, see section 1201 of Pub. L. 105-277, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6511 of this title.

2571

Sec. 2579. Comprehensive compilation of arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament studies

Sec. 2571. Research, development and other studies

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to exercise his powers in this subchapter in such manner as to ensure the acquisition of a fund of theoretical and practical knowledge concerning disarmament and nonproliferation.

responsibilities under this chapter, the Secretary of State shall, to the maximum extent feasible, make full use of available facilities, Government and private. The authority of the Secretary under this chapter with respect to research, development, and other studies concerning arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament shall be limited to participation in the following: Read (a) thru (m)

Under the - Sec. 6601. Reorganization plan

It seems Clinton, abolished 3 agencies and did a consolidation, reorganization, and streamlining of the Department in connection with the transfer of such functions and personnel in order to carry out such functions, under a new name with the power to use gov, or private (NGO's) to to research,development, and other studies concerning arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament.

Anyway, I have 11 pages that track this from the 1982 law in the orginal post. Words & names changed alittle, but the same end product. But these changes bring it under the State Dept (aka - M.Albright) = UN = International TREATIES that superceed our Constitution according to the Sup Court.

I maybe a OLD FOOL in a "tinhat" but I think this ones on the money. lol

If you want the NGO, EX Order & PDD links just let me know I post them.

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 08, 2000.

Awdragon -- I just don't think you understand how the US legal system works. For example, what's this crap about "UN = International TREATIES that superceed our Constitution according to the Sup Court?" That's a real common myth, but I've never been able to find any Supreme Court case that says that. What makes you think there's even a bit of truth to that statement?

First, of course, any treaty has to be ratified by the Senate or it doesn't count. The Contitution, Article II, section 2, clause 2 gives the President the following power: He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur.

Second, the concept that a "treaty" can override the constitution is one of those tinfoil hat myths. The relevant section of the Constitution is Article VI, Section 2, which provides that:

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Mostly, this provision (with regard to treaties) has been applied to hold that state laws governing such issues as hunting and fishing laws do not apply to Indian tribes because of various treaties they have with the federal govenment. No one has ever held that a treaty (whether ratified or not) supercedes the Constitution.

If you believe to the contrary, perhaps you could provide me with the citation to the Supreme Court case that so holds.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people claim they know what the Constitution says, and how few of them (such as yourself) have actually read it.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 08, 2000.

lol @ "tinhat" - Well I think some mines may think different on that; I would hope you were right, then I'd go fishing. Anyway, I think I can find where I picked that up, may take a day but I'll get the info I based that statement on. It was resent, I can't remember off hand what it was a ruling on right now. But I'll find it. And yes, I've read the Constitution several times, along with All of Clintons Executive Orders & PDD's ( they were easy- most are classified) the Fed. papers,State Constitution, Habitat II, Charter 99 and alot of other things. I don't carry them around or put them to memory. I really see no need when there are so many helpful people around. Which I thank you foryour opinion, I'm always looking for the truth. And it's always hard to find.

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 08, 2000.

Indeed, our participation in the United Nations and most other international organizations does not appear based upon a "treaty." Rather, Congress has passed an assortment of laws governing our participation. United States statutes governing our participation in the United Nations may be found at 22 U.S.C. 287, et. seq., which is Subchapter XVI of Chapter 7, of Title 22 of the United States Code.

You might consider reading these statutes before you start believing every conspiracy theory you find floating around the net. Should you wish to do so, you can find a copy of Title 22 at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/ch7subchXVI.html#PCXVI

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 09, 2000.

Thanks for the link, you may want to check the page below also. Well every conspiracy theory has a source, alot start because of the lawyers & politicans. Others started by discontents and rumors. Which was called "Disimformation" or "Spin" by the Clinton group.

Well this was the link I was reading, I'm not planning on reading the entire US code, I'll track down what I think affects the topics.

Becraf

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 09, 2000.

Awdragon -- an interesting article, which bears little relation to legal reality. The cases it cites are generally correct, but deal only with the effects of treaties on STATE law. As the constitution provides, a Federally ratified treaty will always "trump" a state law to the contrary. The constitution says that, plain and simple. Indeed, Article VI, Section 2, is generally refered to as the "Supremecy Clause."

The place where the logic breaks down is two fold. First, the Constitution does say that Federal Law, including treaties (which have been ratified by 2/3 of the Senate) supreceed state law. The conspircay web cites, however, claim that treaties supercede THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL LAW. This is nonsence. Nothing in the article you link to says that.

Second, your article starts with one nonsence premise -- that "the jurisdiction of the United States is constrained by the operation of Art. 1, ' 8, cl. 17 of the U. S. Constitution, and the multitude of decided cases regarding this part of the Constitution declares that the United States has territorial jurisdiction solely within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves inside the states, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States. The possession of territorial jurisdiction is essential under this constitutional provision for federal municipal law such as environmental legislation to apply." Thus, for example, your cited article claims that "treaties [are] being used to provide federal jurisdiction."

This is "junk law." Article 1, Section 8, is the "enumerated powers" clause. Clause 17, does provide that congress has the following power:

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines,arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings

But, of course, clause 17 is only one of the 18 enumerated powers given to Congress. The ones used most extensively to justify federal legislation over everything from interstate prostitution to miagratory birds are the following:

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer therof

Obviously, the power to regulate "commerce" is enormeous. Its limits are the current subject of constitutional debate on the correct extent of the enumerated powers article in general and the commerce clause in specific. Generally, most statutes passed by Congress which affect the states (and are held constitutional by the courts) are grounded in the Commerce Clause. How can Congress prohibit discrimination, regulate air pollution or limit the rights of states to hunt migratory birds? Because Congress found (and the Courts agreed) that these activities all affect Commerce and are thus within the scope of the enumerated powers granted Congress.

But to say that the Congress is basing its legislative authority on "treaties" because it lacks "federal jurisdiction" otherwise is garbage. Read the constitution; track down the cites when you find them in these tinfoil web cites. If you'd read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, you'd know that the statements in the linked article relative to it were BS.

The vast bulk of Federal Law is found in the United States Code and the regulations which interpret it. The United States lacks the power to enter into treaties which would elminate the federal constitutional rights of citizens, and no court has ever held to the contrary.

The Govmit may or may not come and take your guns away. But if they do, it will be because the liberals got a law passed by Congress saying it could be done, not because of some mythical treaty.

A final thought -- treaties require ratification by 2/3 of the Senate. Do you recall who the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee is? Does Jessie Helms ring a bell? What to you think the chances are that Helms would have let such a treaty get through the senate?

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 09, 2000.

Don't get me wrong EH, I understand what you are staying very well. My problem has turned to one disbelieving most things I read or hear. Mainly because of special interests, big business and what I feel is big government over stepping their boundries. The attacks on our "Rights" by the government (using our tax money to defend themselves) is "BS".

Here are 2 more examples State Dept 7277

7277

2 Amendment - Emerson

Case

-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), April 09, 2000.

Awdragon - think you're just a lost cause. If you want to believe that the govmit is out to get you, I'm sure you can find a lot of examples to support your cause. If you think that the United State of America has the best government in the world, and generally does a good job, you can also find a lot of examples.

But, your two examples are examples of whats wrong in tinfoil land.

The first is a 1961 State Department Publication about disarmerment. It was a fad back then. I'ts long gone. It has no force of law. All it shows is that someone long ago was idealistic.

The second is a US District Court Decision from the Northern District of Texas. So? Such decisions are not precidential. Why do you think this thing is important. After all, one of your ideas seems to be that federal judges are idiots.

Put another way, and speaking as an attorney, a Federal District Court decision is published by the Judge just to show off. It has no more value as "law" than my opinon or yours.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 09, 2000.