Law Of the Sea Treaty

[john_bud]

With the ominous acronym of "LOST" is the UN's latest attempt to exert taxation control over the USA. Reagan refused to sign this treaty, you think the current crop would have reservations?

The Law of the Sea treaty will sink America's economy | Fox News

Now some in the US Senate want to say yes to an international tax. It would be the first time in history that an international organization would possess taxing authority, and it would amount to billions of American dollars being transferred out of the US Treasury.

I think this is actually unconstitutional, as only the Congress can levy taxes, but .... with one different supreme court jester it would be just fine and dandy.

[JaydenH]

Didnt we fight a war over this. 1770's i think it was?

[js12278]

The world would sure be a different place if the American companies had the nuts to bring it all home. If another country wanted something American-made, let them pay whatever the real costs would be to have it. America would be a better place for it.

I would love to see the "needy" world grovel.

[cz75luver]

One thing (among many) I learned while working for the government was that you never say no. Make up excuses, delay, ignore, etc. but never say no. I can't see anything like this ever happening. How ridiculous! No company would back the transfer of their technical knowledge and money and being that big business controls the government, I'd be willing to say it's dead. It's healthy for political reasons to pay it lip service, though.

[harley3]

Actually it doesn't matter if a treaty is unconstitutional or not. If the treaty is ratified by 2/3's of the Senate and then signed by the President it would trump the constitution. As far as the LOST treaty goes, Dear Leader Chairman MaObama has stated more than once that he will be implementing things in this treaty and the Small Arms Treaty via Regulation or Executive Order because he knows that the Senate will never ratify this treaty.

[js12278]

Originally Posted by harley3

Actually it doesn't matter if a treaty is unconstitutional or not. If the treaty is ratified by 2/3's of the Senate and then signed by the President it would trump the constitution. As far as the LOST treaty goes, Dear Leader Chairman MaObama has stated more than once that he will be implementing things in this treaty and the Small Arms Treaty via Regulation or Executive Order because he knows that the Senate will never ratify this treaty.

That right there is why the 17th Amendment needs repealed. The Senate no longer answers (since 1913) to the state's congress and governors (elected by the people). Right now the senators can vote no matter what comes down from their home state. This means the individual senators are voting on these decisions without regards to the decisions made at a state level. States have been sold out.

[AwPhuch]

Originally Posted by js12278

That right there is why the 17th Amendment needs repealed. The Senate no longer answers (since 1913) to the state's congress and governors (elected by the people). Right now the senators can vote no matter what comes down from their home state. This means the individual senators are voting on these decisions without regards to the decisions made at a state level. States have been sold out.

ding ding ding!

[john_bud]

Originally Posted by js12278

That right there is why the 17th Amendment needs repealed. The Senate no longer answers (since 1913) to the state's congress and governors (elected by the people). Right now the senators can vote no matter what comes down from their home state. This means the individual senators are voting on these decisions without regards to the decisions made at a state level. States have been sold out.

Not the states, the people.