Under our Constitution, international treaties must be approved by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, but there is reason to believe that Obama plans to implement the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST via Executive Order, flouting the Constitution. This information was buried in a White House report.
Aaron Klein: President Obama’s ambitious plan for stepped up government regulation of the oceans includes an unreported effort to cede U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law, KleinOnline has learned.
The plan was previously a pet project of Secretary of Defence [sic] Leon Panetta, who’s ocean zoning scheme was partnered with a globalist group that also aimed to acquiesce U.S. oceans to UN governance.
Obama’s plan is still in its draft form. It calls for an executive order to be issued for a National Ocean Policy that will determine how the ecosystem is managed while giving the federal government more regulatory authority over any businesses that utilize the ocean.
The executive order is to be based on the recommendations of Obama’s Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task-force, created in 2010 also by executive order….Keep Reading
Original Story from the Independent Sentinel: On October 31, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to back the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention and the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST), sending it to the full Senate where it needs a two-thirds vote to win final approval. If is stalled in the Senate, the President likely plans to implement the treaty via Executive Order.
We are about to be LOST!
On the White House blog in March, President Obama stated “that the United States will promote the stewardship and sustainable use of the oceans in several ways including by cooperating and exercising leadership at the international level and pursuing U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.”
Our President is on the verge of enforcing a treaty that cedes the sovereignty of our oceans to the U.N. courts over which we have no influence. We will also be required to pay one-half of all royalties from off-shore oil drilling to this Marxist international body (the U.N. or its appointed Council). It will be a win-win in Obama’s war on oil. Furthermore, we as a “rich” nation must give away all our proprietary technology about off-shore drilling. The international body will also decide where we can drill. It’s insane!
The Law of the Sea Convention or Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS or LOST) establishes a legal regime for navigation and international management of oceanic resources, including the deep seabed.
This will do nothing for us but put us under the jurisdiction of another bureaucracy and one which is governed by Marxist philosophy. If LOST passes, we can suffer under world bureaucracies as they steal our resources. They believe our wealth belongs to the world in accordance with Marxist philosophy.
We have no influence under these courts – none – and all disputes will fall under this global jurisdiction.
Remember Executive Order 13547, which seizes the U.S. coasts and waterways and puts them under Executive management? The EO “adopts the recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, except where otherwise provided in this order, and directs executive agencies to implement those recommendations under the guidance of a National Ocean Council.” The final recommendations of the Council of 2010 fully conform to the U.N. sustainability agenda. They in fact refer to the Rio Declaration of 1992 in five different sections.
Furthermore, 13547 states, “…The Task Force strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification…” The Task Force falsely promises such an accession will “further our national security, environmental, economic, and diplomatic interests,” when, in fact, it does the opposite by making us pawns of a global monolithic organization run by such countries as China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and other totalitarian states.
It is time to worry.
The LOST is so wrong for so many reasons…
- LOST operates under the assumption that any minerals in the ocean floor constitute the “common heritage” of all mankind — and therefore cannot be the property of any one individual, company, or nation.
- This treaty is an affront to American national sovereignty. It would give the United Nations authority over much of the world’s oceans, including the power to regulate and tax deep-sea mining, and redistribute the proceeds to Third World governments. Moreover, its “hortatory language” provisions are a loaded weapon that activist trial lawyers could easily wield to force the U.S. to adopt laws that the American people’s elected representatives otherwise would not. Source: CEI
Here’s a summary of anti-ratification arguments:
- LOST threatens U. S. sovereignty. Not just a little or around the edges, but fundamentally. Once the U. S. became a party to the treaty, any number of issues could be adjudicated by a LOST tribunal. It is not clear what the limits are on the issues that could be taken up by LOST. Jurisdiction over anything that affects the oceans directly or indirectly could be asserted. The majority of members of the tribunal adjudicating any particular issue are almost certainly going to be hostile to U. S. interests. Tribunal decisions cannot be appealed. Unlike every other country in the world, those decisions could be enforced in U. S. federal courts against the federal government.
- LOST would be a big step toward United Nations global governance. The treaty’s reach extends far beyond international issues and disagreements into nations’ internal policies on a wide array of issues. The treaty’s structure is designed to replace national decision making with UN decision making on these issues.
- For the first time, the United Nations would have international taxing authority through LOST. Enough said.
- LOST would accomplish backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and far beyond. Source: National Review Online
- National sovereignty: The treaty creates a new UN agency with its own dispute resolution tribunal. However, should the US stop its current compliance with the US-negotiated laws of the Convention, the U.S. could not be taken to the Law of the Sea Tribunal since the U.S. has indicated that it would choose binding arbitration rather than availing itself of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.
- The Environment: Some of the Convention’s conservation provisions would provide new avenues for non-US environmental organizations to affect domestic US environmental policies by pursuing legal action in both US and international courts. In addition, requirements that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations could result in mandated overfishing.
- Taxation: The license fees and taxes levied on economic activities in the deep seabed Area by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of ‘taxation without representation’. Citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities in the Area.
- Economics: Businesses can already exploit resources from the international area; ratifying the treaty would force them to buy licenses for that right and pay taxes on the proceeds.
- Navigation rights not threatened: One of the treaty’s main selling points, legally recognized navigation rights on, over, and under straits, is unnecessary because these rights are not currently threatened by law or by any military capable of opposing the US.
- Harm to de-militarizing operations: The treaty would for the first time require all unmanned ocean vessels, including submarines used for mine detection to protect ships exercising the right of innocent passage, to navigate on the surface in territorial waters – effectively eliminating their value for such purposes.
- No control over funding: The treaty gives a blank check to the UN, funded by the US. The US would have no control over how the money is used.
- Eminent domain: The treaty applies eminent domain to intellectual property giving the UN the power to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy states.
- Lack of need: The U.S. already honors almost all the provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes, there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs the negatives of the remaining provisions. Any perceived benefit of an improved U.S. image world-wide is likely to be illusory. Source: Wiki
MORE READING: –
Information on New Treaties: Obama’s War Against U.S. Sovereignty
Executive Order 13575, the agreement to seize our rural lands. It puts every government agency imaginable in control of our agriculture. This EO will follow the UN Agenda 21 guidelines on Sustainable Development and will eventually morph into a treaty which will cede our agriculture to the U.N.
Information on how Obama is clearing the way for a dictatorship: Clearing the Path for a Dictator