Last July, Rep. Helen Chenoweth introduced H.J.RES.63,

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the legal effect of certain treaties and other international agreements.

Someone brought up the fact that some of this proposed Constitutional Amendment is redundant to the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution, and it is. If we had honorable politicians and a truly Constitutional government, these words would not be necessary. However, the sad fact is that very little of what the federal government does nowadays would pass Constitutional muster if any of the Founders were inspecting. Therefore, this proposed amendment would be of great benefit. Below is the full text in quotes with short comments attached:

Section 1 states that,

A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

That would immediately make null and void a couple dozen burdensome treaties and their associated laws, rules and regulations.

Section 2 provides that,

A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges legislative authority of the several States shall not be of any force or effect unless ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures within five years of the date of the ratification of the treaty by the Senate.

 

States would have to agree to most treaties. That would take out many of the environmental and fish and wildlife treaties. Agreements like the Kyoto Treaty would probably have no chance of ever being ratified.

Section 3 holds that,

No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States enumerated in this Constitution or any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States or the several States. No decision of any international body purporting to interpret treaties to which the United States is a party shall be given any precedential effect by the courts of the United States or the several States in any proceeding concerning any matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States or the several States.

So, say goodbye to all of the UN agreements, those idiotic UNESCO World Heritage sites and the biosphere program. As American citizens, we could tell the UN organization representatives to hang it in their ear and go away. Our rights would supersede whatever schemes they might dream up.

Section 4 states that,

A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress. This section shall not be construed to grant Congress any authority to enact legislation that is not otherwise authorized by a specific grant of legislative authority in this Constitution.

In other words, our rights would still be protected. Because, if the power is not already granted to the federal government by the Constitution, Congress may not legislate on the subject. What a concept!

Section 5 says that,

All agreements between the United States and other nations which have any binding effect of law upon this Nation or its citizens are treaties and shall be subject to the procedures and limitations for treaties set forth in this article and other provisions of this Constitution.

That bars the administration from making all those unilateral executive "agreements" that are less than treaties but still said to be binding on the American people.

Section 6 states that,

Not later than 21 days after a treaty is signed on behalf of the United States, the President shall transmit the text of that treaty to the Senate for ratification.

That's important, because there are potential treaties sitting around, sometimes for decades, awaiting a favorable time for the administration to push then through the Senate. This way, the Senate can vote it down immediately and be done with it forever.

For background, see Larry Becraft's legal briefs on various federal law topics at <http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/>. To fully understand the reasons the Chenoweth amendment could be useful, we recommend study of the "Federal Jurisdiction Brief" as well as the "Treaties and Jurisdiction" section at the Becraft Briefs site.

Last year, it was former White House aide Paul Begala who made the stupid remark. While referring to President Clinton bypassing Congress with executive orders, Begala blabbed:

Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.

This year, it's White House Chief of Staff John Podesta. U.S. News & World Report's Paul Bedard related that, frustrated with the balking Republican Congress, Podesta thinks it's time for President Clinton to show who's boss.

How? Clinton plans a series of executive orders and changes to federal rules that he can sign into law without first getting the OK from GOP naysayers. Since it's Podesta's idea, aides have dubbed it "Project Podesta." The namesake told our Kenneth T. Walsh: "There's a pretty wide sweep of things we're looking to do, and we're going to be very aggressive in pursuing it." Up first: new rules to protect medical privacy and health-care records and providing paid leave to parents to take care of their newborns.

 

Some in Congress are finally starting to protest these Clinton excesses with the introduction of HR 2655, the "Separation of Powers Restoration Act."

For instance, Rep. Ron Paul states:

For far too many years, the illegitimate uses (of executive orders) have overshadowed the legitimate. Presidents have issued executive orders that have mistakenly taken on the semblance of law. . . The Separation of Powers Restoration Act is designed to restore the separation of powers between Congress and the president as set forth in Articles I and II of the United States Constitution by:

(1) terminating all existing states of national emergency and removing from the executive branch any power to declare national emergencies;

(2) vesting power in Congress alone to declare states of national emergency;

(3) restricting presidential power to issue executive orders by denying to them any force of law except as provided for by Congress; and

(4) repealing the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

 

Paul further admits:

That powers have been usurped is undeniable, and that our system is out of balance is evident to the most casual of observers. We have the opportunity to more perfectly balance our system and restrict potential abuses. That is what this bill, HR 2655, is designed to do.

 

For a little more on this, and to see if your Representative is signed on as a cosponsor, visit the Executiveorder.org site at: http://www.executiveorders.org

Another program deserving close attention is described by Jeff Head (and others) at Restoration 2000 web site. The group bills itself as:

A non-aligned effort for Constitutional Restoration in these United States in the elections of 2000.

The organization supports voting for and electing only those candidates at the state and national level who commit themselves, their lives, their fortunes and their honor to carrying out five general points:

1. Eliminate the Federal Income Tax, the IRS and the Federal Reserve System.

2. Rescind the national State of Emergency, the Emergency Powers Act and all associated agencies, legislation and EO's.

3. Return all powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution to the states or to the people.

4. Repeal all legislation which in any way infringe on the existing first ten amendments to the Constitution.

5. Terminate US membership and all involvement in the United Nations.

Many very interesting points are made at the Restoration 2000 web site. If the full program were implemented, we would win back most of those unalienable rights and liberties intended by the Founding Fathers when they wrote our Constitution. Visit the site at: http://www.myplanet.net/jeffhead/rest2000/rest2000.htm

For those liberty-loving Republicans having a little problem with the current babbling in their Party but not yet willing to change political parties, there's the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC). The RLC is a group of Republican libertarians who support things like lower and fewer taxes, abolishing the IRS, the right to privacy, the right to keep and bear arms, balanced budgets through spending cuts, educational choice, freedom of speech, the protection of property rights, market-based health care, alternatives to the drug war, an all-volunteer armed forces, term limits, sound monetary policies, deregulation, a phase-out of foreign aid, ending federal welfare, private options to Social Security, and the privatization of many government functions.

In other words, the RLC still supports those concepts that once were the backbone of the Republican Party platform. Visit them at: http://www.rlc.org

Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave." One wonders how Jefferson would comment on the disastrous state of liberty in The Colonies today.

America's popular cyberspace Liberty Tree, the Free Republic web site, suffered a blow to its trunk in federal court a few days ago. In a 28 page summary, Clinton appointed Judge Margaret Morrow issued a preliminary ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, on their motion for a partial summary judgment. According to Free Republic's attorney, the plaintiffs motion was solely for a preliminary ruling on Free Republic's "fair use exemption" argument.

But, although the Liberty Tree's trunk may have been marked a little, the tree is still healthy and Free Republic has been as busy as ever.

This was a warning from the liberal establishment, however. It was a warning to all of us discussing the politics of the day on the Internet. Because, to put it mildly, the liberal national media is not pleased.

Much the same as "liberty trees" were used throughout the American colonies 220-some years ago, citizens of today post news stories to the Free Republic web site. The problem at Free Republic was (is) that participants often post interesting political newspaper articles to the site and then comment on them in writing -- for all to read. Others are then invited to also comment -- also in writing, for all to see. Often, lengthily discussions result. And, as things sometimes happen, these discussions are not always favorable to the point of view of the newspaper.

However, as Americans, it is our right, even our duty, to discuss the politics of the day. Many media outlets provide their "news" free to readers on the Internet, so there seems to be little problem with copying an occasional article for discussion elsewhere. The analogy is similar to cutting an article out of a paper newspaper for display somewhere -- the Founding Fathers used the original Liberty Tree.

The actual problem resulted when "non-leftist liberal" folks started discussing the "news" and comparing the accuracy of what was reported (and which things were left out) with what had actually happened. Major discrepancies were sometimes identified in important news accounts -- especially those stories involving the many Clinton administration wrongdoings. At times, a newspaper's deliberate spin on the news was also exposed.

The liberal newspapers were not happy with the critical reviews by these "non-journalist" politically astute people -- and Free Republic has many active politically perceptive members. So, the huge media corporations are spending big bucks to teach little Free Republic a lesson. In short, they plan to make an example of Jim Robinson, the owner of the Free Republic site.

There's another problem, too, as related by Matt Drudge last weekend. Drudge mentioned that the "fourth estate" is becoming upset because they are continuously being "scooped," and sometimes even preempted, by what he called the "fifth estate": The Internet. And we on the Internet do not want their liberal filter on the news. Most of us here reject the major media's spin.

Therefore, look for other "examples" to be made of unsuspecting web sites by the wealthy liberal media moguls. We are, after all, reporting and discussing the news without the proper liberal credentials. According to them we are, anyway.

How many of these "examples" shall we sit back and allow before we take action? Should we allow these big corporations to make an example of Free republic, or should we put a stop to it now? They have the big corporate media bucks with which to hire a room full of lawyers, but there is a way we can fight back: Simply inform their advertiser's CEO that we will not purchase their products if they advertise in the offending newspapers.

That's easier to do than it sounds, too. A large chunk of their income comes from the advertising of major corporations, such as big department stores and auto dealers. None of those CEO's would want to hear that we are boycotting their products. If they receive a few hundred such letters, the VP in charge of advertising will be called on the carpet and immediate changes "suggested."

Or, we can sit back and do nothing, knowing that it is just a matter of time until the same liberal media corporations add their spin control to all that we read and hear here, too.

Because, the fix is in. As Jim Robinson points out in the companion article below, a Clinton appointed judge, one whom the Los Angeles Times pushed for Senate approval, now supports the position of the Los Angeles Times against a web site that is decisively against the corruption of the Clinton administration. So, "justice" is predetermined in this case. The judge, the Los Angeles Times and the Clinton administration all have a vested interest in harassing Free Republic.

We asked Jim Robinson, owner and operator of the Free Republic web site, to comment on the recent court hearing in the case of media giants The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post vs. Free Republic. Below is his unedited response to our request for information:

The Judge had her 28 page tentative ruling all neatly typed and photocopied and ready for delivery as we set foot in her courtroom.

She gave our legal team five minutes to digest it and about as much time for arguing our side of the story before ruling [on] 3 [issues] to 1 for plaintiffs.

"I'll give you one minute, Mr. Buckley, and I mean one minute to summarize."

But the liberal, Clinton appointed Hanging Judge Morrow is completely wrong and biased in her opinions.

Number one, she proclaims that Free Republic is a commercial operation and is therefore somehow not eligible to use "fair use" as a defense. This is hogwash. For example, the Texaco Corporation is obviously a multi- billion dollar, multinational, commercial, for profit operation and yet they used "fair use" successfully to defend themselves from a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Furthermore, whether a company (or web site) is commercial or not has absolutely nothing to do with the fair use doctrine. It is how the material in question is actually used which she should be putting to the test. Free Republic uses the copyrighted material from the web- based freely available news media for discussion and critique and to further the public interest -- not to make a profit. We do not sell it or give it away free as news the way a newspaper does. In fact, we do not sell anything at all. We are simply a group of deeply concerned, patriotic citizens who have banded together in an electronic town hall bulletin board to expose the corruption in government and the media's complicity in seeing it covered-up and/or expanded.

Judge Morrow claims that Free Republic is commercial because we ask for donations. Hah! So do the Boy Scouts and the Red Cross. As far as that goes, so does Bill Clinton. Does that make them commercial?

She admits that the donations are to sustain our operations, but then goes on to say that the very reason for Free Republic's existence is to raise those donations. Baloney! The reason for Free Republic was (which can be historically proven) and still is, to see Bill Clinton impeached and run out of government, and to see corruption (liberal activist judges doing favors for liberal newspapers and presidents, for example) and illegal government expansion rooted out as well.

Which leads us to the fact that Judge Morrow, herself, was appointed by Clinton, and then her confirmation was held up by the Senate for two years. The Los Angeles Times published many, many editorials during that time calling for the Senate to confirm her, which they eventually (and now proven wrongfully) did. It looks to me like Morrow owes her job to the plaintiffs. No possibility for bias or political pay back here, I suppose. . . .

She gives us the fact that the law allows us to use the material because of it's nature: News and factual based content. Although we are wondering why she didn't rule the content put out by plaintiffs as works of fiction. She also ruled against us on transformation. And that's kind of strange being as how we transform the work immediately when we post it. When posted to Free Republic, it transforms from a fictional accounting of a corrupt event to a public service corruption expose', complete with our own HTML code and our reply button and open invitation for public comment, discussion and critique. Let's see the Times place such a button and invitation on their own news articles for public critique. I'll bet the concept wouldn't last a week. The Times can't handle the truth.

Next, Judge Morrow found that the portion of copyrighted materials used by Free Republic is more than allowed by the statute. But, again, that does not comport with the law. We are using only a tiny, insignificant fraction of what a paper puts out daily and of what they actually copyright. The portions we use are individual articles and we post them in their full-blown, magnificent glory so that we can have a clear record of the actual fictional words that they printed, without any chance for a poster's bias to creep in if he were required to summarize the article. Also, we need the entire article being as how the major methodology that we use is to compare the treatment that liberal papers use for spinning, er, interpreting and disseminating the same events as compared to other less liberal papers, and especially as compared to the actual truth when it finally becomes available (as in, "I never had sex with that woman ... Monica Lewinsky.").

And so, in order to fulfill our public service mission of exposing government corruption and media complicity, we need to have the full text available as evidence for comparison today and for historical purposes later. The Times and the Post endorsed, supported and foisted the known criminal, Governor Bill Clinton, on us and now the entire world realizes the horrible extent of the lies they printed and how corrupt he actually is. One of our goals was to impeach the lying bastard, and according to Henry Hyde, Bob Barr, James Rogan, and many others of the House Managers, Free Republic played a direct part in doing just that.

We the People impeached a corrupt President through our Representatives and this despite the objections and lies of the corrupt media. The cowardly Senate failed to do their Constitutional duty and hold a real trial. Instead they let him off the hook. Now a liberal Judge wants to do the same thing with Free Republic, only in reverse. She wants to lynch us without allowing us our right to a fair trial and is depriving us of our chance to bring forth all of our evidence, witnesses and arguments for defense before a jury of our peers.

Lastly, Morrow says that Free Republic adversely impacts the multibillion dollar revenue streams of two of the largest and most powerful news organizations in the world. This is laughable on its face. We are a tiny web site operated with no investment capital, no budget and no staff, by a nearly bankrupt, handicapped, homebound veteran in a wheelchair. There is absolutely no way on God's green earth that we represent any unfair competition to the mighty Los Angeles Slimes or the Washington.Com Post. Our only source of "revenue" are the tiny donations sent in by individual readers and participants, and as the Judge admits, this barely sustains our operation.

Moreover, the Judge allowed the plaintiffs to stiff us when we subpoenaed their usage logs which would prove that we actually bring more hits to their web sites that we divert. And even though our world renown expert in web site statistics proved that fact with a thorough and detailed analysis of information from the samples of their logs that they did turn over, the Judge ignored the sworn evidence and awarded this point to plaintiffs based on their bare assertion and the Judge's own assumptions that "of course, everybody knows that if you put an article on a public bulletin board web site like Free Republic, then everyone will read it there and have no reason to go to the LA Times site."

Again laughable. The LA Times content on Free Republic makes up something like less than one-tenth of one-percent of the total content on the site. No one in his right mind would come to the Free Republic web site just to read the LA Times for free. There's maybe one article per day, if that, from the Times posted on Free Republic. If someone seriously wants to read the liberal drivel put out by the Times, they'll go to the Times' web site and read it there free. Why would someone who's truly interested in reading liberal government propaganda want to wade through hundreds and thousands of right-wing posts just to read an occasional Times article? This doesn't make any sense at all.

Oh well, a slight set back maybe, but we have not yet begun to fight. We will win on appeal and, if plaintiffs insist, we will be willing to argue our case in the Supreme Court. We the People have our First Amendment rights to peaceable assembly and to criticize our government, and those rights trump the lying media's right to exploit their intellectual fiction for fun and profit.

Our lives and liberty are at stake here. That's what we are fighting for.

http://www.freerepublic.com

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

hu158.htm. Revised 11-13-99. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.