greg334
Veteran Expediter
I was going to post this in the soapbox forum but I feel that it is too important to be there.
This issue affects us more than the Mexican Truck issue and part of the tearing our sovereignty apart. I don’t understand where the president and the congress are coming from but being part of an industry that is directly affected by these issues and should do more than we are.
I mean that between this treaty, the dream act, the lack of border control – everything points to the dismantling of our country (it really needs to be a trench with a 1/2 mile wide buffer zone – scr*w the ranchers, the Rio Grand and the environmentalist).
The issue is the UN law of the Sea treaty that has passed committee (17-4) in the senate and will be voted on soon.
The UN has been trying to have the US to ratify this, once the treaty gets ratified, it essentially becomes a part of our constitution and our rights are limited. This is not just about the sea and what lies below but the air and a shifting of wealth.
I ask everyone to contact their senator to tell them not to ratify this treaty, it circumvents our sovereignty and opens the US to more restrictions of our coast and restricts out ability to explore and use the open sea for oil and other resources. This is bascally a way to tax all of us, once it is in place it can be expanded.
http://www.senate.gov
As much as I am just touching the tip on this complicated treaty, I can not list all the issues but here are just a few;
* National sovereignty: The treaty creates a new UN agency with its own dispute resolution tribunal.
* 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. (author’s note; this can easily extent to other area of property rights, mainly under the present system we could to have our property seized by our government and the states can limit the seizure of property but this treaty can easily be extend to circumvent our states rights to the extent of having the UN decide to take property under this treaty.)
* 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 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
Read more –
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1676.cfm
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA534LawofSea.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1459.cfm
This issue affects us more than the Mexican Truck issue and part of the tearing our sovereignty apart. I don’t understand where the president and the congress are coming from but being part of an industry that is directly affected by these issues and should do more than we are.
I mean that between this treaty, the dream act, the lack of border control – everything points to the dismantling of our country (it really needs to be a trench with a 1/2 mile wide buffer zone – scr*w the ranchers, the Rio Grand and the environmentalist).
The issue is the UN law of the Sea treaty that has passed committee (17-4) in the senate and will be voted on soon.
The UN has been trying to have the US to ratify this, once the treaty gets ratified, it essentially becomes a part of our constitution and our rights are limited. This is not just about the sea and what lies below but the air and a shifting of wealth.
I ask everyone to contact their senator to tell them not to ratify this treaty, it circumvents our sovereignty and opens the US to more restrictions of our coast and restricts out ability to explore and use the open sea for oil and other resources. This is bascally a way to tax all of us, once it is in place it can be expanded.
http://www.senate.gov
As much as I am just touching the tip on this complicated treaty, I can not list all the issues but here are just a few;
* National sovereignty: The treaty creates a new UN agency with its own dispute resolution tribunal.
* 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. (author’s note; this can easily extent to other area of property rights, mainly under the present system we could to have our property seized by our government and the states can limit the seizure of property but this treaty can easily be extend to circumvent our states rights to the extent of having the UN decide to take property under this treaty.)
* 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 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
Read more –
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1676.cfm
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA534LawofSea.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1459.cfm
