Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Freedom Watch | Main | TITLE 18 USC LAWSUIT SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - Request for comments re: this late 2011 announcement and US DOJ's interest in it now »

Formal challenge to "not self-executing" Declaration appended to U.S. ratification of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
To: information@icj-cij.org,
SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>,
aseibert@mpil.de,
william.carter@temple.edu
Date: Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Subject: Formal challenge to "not self-executing" Declaration appended to U.S. ratification of ICCPR
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com
mailed-by: googlegroups.com
signed-by: googlegroups.com

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/

http://supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/
http://supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/reservations.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/buergenthal/

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/seibert-fohr/

See also:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/carter/
http://supremelaw.org/authors/carter/Judicial.Power.to.Compel.Domestic.Treaty.Implementation.pdf


"It is my contention that where a human rights treaty requires domestic
implementation, that duty of implementation may be judicially
enforced by mandamus relief.

"Although U.S. policymakers may attempt to modify the treaties they ratify
to obviate any duty of domestic implementation,
they may not do so by reliance on a misinterpretation of the non-self-executing treaty doctrine
nor may they do so by a Senate declaration of non-self-execution
."


See also extensive discussion of ICCPR in these decisions

particularly the dissents:

https://casetext.com/case/igartua-v-us  (2011)

https://casetext.com/case/igart218a-v-us
  (2010)
 
Mark,

What a lot of judges have overlooked is their assumption that
the "not self-executing" Declaration is Federal law --
enforceable within the 50 States of the Union.
What the dissenters in the Igartua cases:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/page04.gif
have done is to challenge that Declaration
for various reasons e.g. no vote by the House
of Representatives.

Moreover, I have argued that such a Declaration
cannot be Federal law because it violates the
Petition Clause in the First Amendment:

http://supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1st-amend

"Congress shall make no law ...."

Unconstitutionality dates from the moment of enactment,
NOT from any decision so branding the Act in question:

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr10.htm

            The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose;  since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding itAn unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.  Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be[,] had the statute not been enacted.

 

            Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ....

 

            A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.  An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.  Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

 

            No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.

 

[16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177, emphasis added]

/s/ Paul
 

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Mark Rosst <vidyagama@gmail.com> wrote:
hmm ... interesting ... thanks.
 
--

Mark, Seattle WA, USA



--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
___
 
Refs:
 
Formal Challenge to "not self-executing" Declaration appended to Senate ratification of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | A communication addressed to Greetings Judge Thomas Buergenthal,.
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2015/01/formal-challenge-to-not-self-executing-declaration-appended-to-senate-ratification-of-iccpr-a-commun.html
 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
https://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Covenant-on-Civil-and-Political-Rights/308087676064004
 
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

January 23, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink