Obama Administration continues the pattern of subordinating US law , Congress , the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Bending over and subverting the will of the people - to do the bidding of foreign interests and provide legal superiority to foreign and / or International laws ( recall recent UN moves in a similar vein )

http://www.infowars.com/its-official-presidency-now-a-dictatorship/

It’s Official: Presidency Now a Dictatorship

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 15, 2012

Obama’s latest outrageous violation of the laws of the United States demonstrate that the nation has arrived at its destination: a dictatorship lorded over by an imperial ruler.

On Friday, Obama instructed the government to ignore an influx of illegal aliens streaming over the border. The move was implemented to sway Latino voters into the Obama camp in preparation for the upcoming election against fellow establishment candidate Mitt Romney.

Obama’s violations of law and the Constitution make his predecessor look like a piker by way of comparison. Since he was voted into office by deluded citizens who believed he would pay for their rent and food, Obama has enacted by fiat or worked with Congress to pass a number of bills that have increased the power of the executive and the unconstitutional authority of the federal government.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

This monstrous statute allows the government to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. The NDAA gives the government the authority to designate American citizens as terrorists and indefinitely detain them without recourse to courts or due process of law and without specific charge.

“Permit me to state the obvious,” writes Sheldon Richman. “The government shouldn’t be allowed to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. It shouldn’t be necessary to say this nearly 800 years after Magna Carta was signed and over 200 years after the Fifth Amendment was ratified.”

Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta states that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” The concept of due process first appeared in English common law in 1354 and inspired the Fifth Amendment more than 400 years later.

The time honored principle that the state must try citizens in a court of law is now dead – and with surprisingly little resistance from our supposed representatives.

Unconstitutional wars

Not only did Obama continue and amplify Bush’s unconstitutional, illegal and immoral wars against nations that did not present a danger to the United States, he also initiated an overt war of his own in Libya (under NATO cover). He did not go to Congress and seek a declaration as required under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Instead, he used the fig leaf of the United Nations to cover his illegal action.

In May, the Secretary of War, Leon Panetta, said Obama will “seek international permission” to launch new wars.” He declared the “commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country” without consulting the American people.

In March, Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to prevent Obama from starting another war without authorization from Congress. It has since languished in committee.

Obamacare

Obama’s health care mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance from large monopolistic corporations represents the height of his arrogance and contempt for the American people and the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution is known as the Commerce Clause. It states that “Congress shall have the power… to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes.” It does not permit the government to force you to buy insurance from a government preferred and protected monopoly.

In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote that the clause spells out that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined,” while those left to the states “are numerous and indefinite,” although you wouldn’t know that if you listen to Democrats and far too many of their Republican colleagues.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to facilitate commerce between the states and prevent tariffs, quotas and taxes. It was not designed to help a lumbering and dictatorial federal government force “mandates” on the people at gunpoint.

• A D V E R T I S E M E N T
• 

Our supposed representatives are wholly ignorant of the Constitution and its unmistakable principles of limited government intervention. Rep. Nancy Pelosi made this clear when she was asked if the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate.

“Are you serious?” she responded, demonstrating her complete ignorance of the Constitution.

In March, Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to prevent Obama from starting another war without authorization from Congress. It has since languished in committee.

Obamacare

Obama’s health care mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance from large monopolistic corporations represents the height of his arrogance and contempt for the American people and the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution is known as the Commerce Clause. It states that “Congress shall have the power… to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes.” It does not permit the government to force you to buy insurance from a government preferred and protected monopoly.

In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote that the clause spells out that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined,” while those left to the states “are numerous and indefinite,” although you wouldn’t know that if you listen to Democrats and far too many of their Republican colleagues.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to facilitate commerce between the states and prevent tariffs, quotas and taxes. It was not designed to help a lumbering and dictatorial federal government force “mandates” on the people at gunpoint.

Our supposed representatives are wholly ignorant of the Constitution and its unmistakable principles of limited government intervention. Rep. Nancy Pelosi made this clear when she was asked if the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate.

“Are you serious?” she responded, demonstrating her complete ignorance of the Constitution.

Following legal challenges to the law and its consideration before the highest court, Obama threatened to cut off Medicare payments if the Supreme Court does not rule in his favor.

Treaties

Obama has shown his contempt for the law, Congress, and the people by negotiating globalist treaties.

He would subvert the American judicial process by implementing the International Criminal Court. It will ultimately be used against American citizens. Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame University Law School has stated that we will be confronted by “a monster” that effectively “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.”

The Law of the Sea Treaty will create another international bureaucracy that will limit the sovereignty of the United States and impose globalist regulations. “The autonomy of the United States is threatened if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body that is not accountable to the American people,” writes Julie Borowski. “The U.N. is openly hostile to our national sovereignty and republican form of government. The ratification of LOST [Law of the Sea Treaty] would open up a Pandora’s Box of problems. It would impose global taxes and regulations that cripple economic growth while exposing ourselves to high-stakes environmental lawsuits.”

The Small Arms Treaty would circumvent the Second Amendment, the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. If ratified, it will impose even tougher licensing requirements, confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms, ban semiautomatic weapons, create an international gun registry, and override our cherished national sovereignty.

Startling details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership were revealed earlier this week in a leaked document. This treaty would allow transnational corporations to skirt American banking, investment, environmental and labor laws. The laws would still apply to corporations based in the United States, however. “The leaked document shows that in all of the major respects, this is exactly the same template that was used in NAFTA and other agreements that President Obama campaigned against,” Todd Tucker, the research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, told Slate.

Flurry of Executive Orders

Although he lied and said he would not issue executive orders, Obama has signed a large numberof them:

Council of Governors. “An Obama executive order that creates a council of state governors who will work with the feds to expand military involvement in domestic security, together with PDD 51, a Bush era executive order that gives the President dictatorial power in times of national emergency, eliminate the last roadblocks to declaring martial law in the United States,” Paul Joseph Watson summarized in January of 2010.

National Defense Resources Preparedness: This EO, signed in March of 2012, renews and updates Obama’s authority to seize control of all civil energy supplies, including oil and natural gas, and control and restrict all civil transportation. It essentially reaffirms a large number of FEMA-related executive orders issued since the national security state was installed in 1947 and is another element in an intricate structure that will enable martial law at the president’s discretion.

Less significant – although equally unconstitutional – executive orders include creating a council on bioethics, implementing a policy on space exploration, creating a mathematics advisory panel, and numerous other issues that should be addressed by Congress.

Advanced Effort to Kill the Constitution

From the Department of Justice’s high-handed attempt to prevent Arizona from protecting its borders to restrictive EPA rules that impose unreasonably burdensome financial costs on the states, Obama’s federal government has turned into a tyrannical leviathan dictating policy and law at gunpoint.

Since the reign of Bush, the federal government has shifted into high gear the effort to degrade and dilute the separation of powers. Obama was installed precisely to oversee the further destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and empower the imperial presidency.

His latest move to further weaken the immigration laws of the United States is simply more evidence that the federal government will continue to run roughshod over the Constitution and the natural rights of the American people, an incremental plan implemented by the elite that is now approaching its zenith.

and.....

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-14/international-treaty-negotiated-secret-%E2%80%93-hidden-even-congressmen-who-oversee-

Treaty Negotiated In Secret – Hidden Even from Congressmen Who Oversee Treaties – Threatens to Destroy National Sovereignty

Submitted by George Washington on 06/14/2012 19:50 -0400

• Darrell Issa
 
• House Oversight Committee
 
• University of California
 
• White House

The normally-reserved Yves Smith asks whether Obama should be impeached over it.

Democratic Senator Wyden – the head of the committee which is supposed to oversee it – is so furious about the lack of access that he has introduced legislation to force disclosure.

Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is so upset by it that he has leaked a document on his website to show what’s going on.

What is everyone so furious about?

An international treaty being negotiated in secret which would not only crack down on Internet privacy much more than SOPA or ACTA, but would actually destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. and all other signatories.

It is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Wyden is the chairman of the trade committee in the Senate … the committee which is supposed to have jurisdiction overthe TPP. Wyden is also on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and so he and his staff have high security clearances and are normally able to look at classified documents.

And yet Wyden and his staff have been denied access to the TPP’s text.

This is similar to other recent incidences showing that we’ve gone from a nation of laws to a nation of powerful men making laws in secret.

For example,  in the summer 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio – who is on the Homeland Security Committee (and so has proper security access to be briefed on so-called “Continuity of Government” issues) – inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans by the White House (video; or here is the transcript). The Homeland Security Committee has full clearance to view all information about COG plans. DeFazio concluded: “Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.

As University of California Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott warned:

If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.

To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority.

Watch this interview from today explaining why TPP is so dangerous to America … and the rest of the world:

and.....




http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/obama-plan-to-put-foreign-companies-above-the-law.html

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2012

Obama Plans to Put Foreign Companies Above the Law

Zach Carter has a must-read new article up at Huffington Post on leaked documents from trade negotiations that have been posted at the website Public Citizen. You should read his entire article, pronto, but here is the money quote:

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration’s advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

[Courtesy Waren Celli, click for larger image]

This is an active effort to undermine US laws and make certain US laws subordinate to non-US tribunal that sits outside any democratic process. President Obama took an oath to uphold the land. I’d like to throw this out to readers. As much as trade agreements (which were approved by Congress) have sometimes run into friction with existing laws, this move by Obama looks to be a far more radical effort to increase the power of multinational companies. And US companies would argue for, and likely eventually get, similar breaks, assuring a legal/regulatory race to the bottom (if you think what we have is bad now, do not underestimate how much worse it could get).

Let’s set aside the fact that no current Congress will stand in the way of a pro-business measure. I’d like readers to tell me whether they think this initiative is an impeachable offense. Does this sort of effort to gut US laws rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors“?

Update: The use of the “I’ word has led some readers to argue (basically) “What are you talking about? This is just a negotiation.” True, but it is also revealing how little we expect of Congress and how much its standing has fallen. This idea should be so far outside the pale that both the substance as well as the process would, in another era, have elicited a serious pushback from Congress. But of course, in that other era, a cagey politician like Obama would never have gone this far either. We seem to be living the Frederick Douglass quote:

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.

and......


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

WASHINGTON -- A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.

The leaked document has been posted on the website of Public Citizen, a long-time critic of the administration's trade objectives. The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congresshave complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive.

"The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of [trade] negotiations," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch in a written statement.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been so incensed by the lack of access as to introduce legislation requiring further disclosure. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has gone so far as to leak a separate document from the talks on his website. Other Senators are considering writing a letter to Ron Kirk, the top trade negotiator under Obama, demanding more disclosure.

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.

"We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document.

Yet nearly all of those vows are violated by the leaked Trans-Pacific document. The one that is not contravened in the present document -- regarding access to life-saving medication -- is in conflict with a previously leaked document on intellectual property (IP) standards.

"Bush was better than Obama on this," said Judit Rius, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign, referring to the medication rules. "It's pathetic, but it is what it is. The world's upside-down."

In a statement provided to HuffPost, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative downplayed the concerns.

"This administration is committed to ensuring strong environmental, public health and safety laws," said USTR spokesperson Nkenge Harmon. "Nothing in our TPP investment proposal could impair our government's ability to pursue legitimate, non-discriminatory public interest regulation, including measures to protect public health, public safety and the environment."

Words like "legitimate" and "nondiscriminatory" can have flexible interpretations among international tribunals, however, which have recently ruled that U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labelling and anti-teen smoking efforts are unfair barriers to trade, according to prior trade pacts. The new investment rules, for instance, extend to government contracting negotiations, eliminating so-called "Buy American" preferences for domestic manufacturers.

USTR has previously stated that it does not comment on the terms of an allegedly leaked document.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative insists that while broad standards require many medical patents and IP rules that would increase the price of medications, the U.S. intends to work with countries involved in the Trans-Pacific talks to ensure that the agreement does not restrict access to life-saving drugs.

That statement is belied somewhat by recent American efforts in other international negotiations to establish controversial medical patents that grant companies long-term monopolies on life-saving medications. Those monopolies increase drug prices, which impede access to medications, particularly in developing nations. The World Health Organization and dozens of nonprofit public health groups have objected to the standards sought by the Obama administration. Two United Nations groupsrecently urged global governments not to agree to trade terms currently being advocated by the Obama administration, on the grounds that such rules would hurt public health.

Such foreign investment standards have also come under fire at home, from both conservative sovereignty purists and progressive activists for the potential to hamper domestic priorities implemented by democratically elected leaders. The North American Free Trade Agreement, passed by Congress in 1993, and a host of subsequent trade pacts granted corporations new powers that had previously been reserved for sovereign nations and that have allowed companies to sue nations directly over issues.

While the current trade deal could pose a challenge to American sovereignty, large corporations headquartered in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it by using the same terms to oppose the laws of foreign governments. If one of the eight Pacific nations involved in the talks passes a new rule to which an American firm objects, that U.S. company could take the country to court directly in international tribunals.

Public Citizen challenged the independence of these international tribunals, noting that "The tribunals would be staffed by private sector lawyers that rotate between acting as 'judges' and as advocates for the investors suing the governments," according to the text of the agreement.

In early June, a tribunal at the World Bank agreed to hear a case involving similar foreign investment standards, in which El Salvador banned cyanide-based gold mining on the basis of objections from the Catholic Church and environmental activists. If the World Bank rules against El Salvador, it could overturn the nation's domestic laws at the behest of a foreign corporation.

Speaking to the environmental concerns raised by the leaked document, Margrete Strand Rangnes, Labor and Trade Director for the Sierra Club, an environmental group said, "Our worst fears about the investment chapter have been confirmed by this leaked text ... This investment chapter would severely undermine attempts to strengthen environmental law and policy."

Basic public health and land-use rules would be subject to challenge before an international tribunal, as would bank regulations at capital levels that might be used to stymie bank runs or financial crises. The IMF has advocated the use of such capital controls, which would be prohibited under the current version of the leaked trade pact. Although several countries have proposed exceptions that would allow them to regulate speculative financial bets, the U.S. has resisted those proposals, according to Public Citizen.

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.