« | »


Saturday, October 25th, 2008 at 7:56pm

Sarah Palin v. United States

Posted by Curtis Haring

So I know I am a little behind the curve on this whole “Sarah Pailn has foreign policy experience because she is next to Russia” thing, but I heard it again today and have yet to hear this as an legal argument.

If, when refereeing to her tenure as Governor of Alaska, someone says that Sarah Palin has experience with trade envoys and being the first line of defense against Russia, what they are really saying is that Sarah Pailn is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States.

But don’t take my word for it – allow me to quote from Article I, Section X

Paragraph I:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation…

Paragraph II:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul (sp) of the Congress.

Paragraph III:
No State shall, with the Consent of Congress,…enter into any agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So, allow me to translate:

Paragraph I:
No state (Alaska being one, last I checked) can never, never, never have any form of diplomatic relations. NEVER!

Paragraph II:
Unless the United States Congress specifically says that it is ok, no state (Alaska being one, I dare to point out) put a tariff, or tax if you will, on anything that leaves or comes into its ports. If they do get permission, the money goes straight to the United States Government, not the state where it was taken in.

Paragraph III:
No state (Alaska has been one for almost 50 years now) can never, never, never, go to war with another state or country unless they are invaded first and, for some reason, the United States Government, can not or will, not respond.

So, what the Constitution is saying is that a state can not conduct any diplomatic, economic, or military procedures against another country. It is almost as if the Founding Fathers wanted states to focus on being part of the republic, not their own countries.

So then, I ask to you, right-wing pundits. Was Sarah Pain engaged in foreign policy while Governor of Alaska? If so, she is in blatant violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and has committed treason. If not, I guess it would mean that you are wrong, and it is a lie to continue perpetrating it on the American people.

P.S. Sorry that, yet again, that pesky little Constitution got in the way of your grand schemes.


« | »

2 Responses to “Sarah Palin v. United States”

  1. Kyle says:

    Just to bring out another irritating point to this subject, the Supreme Court seems to have validated the idea that individual states are not under the obligations of treaties in state law (Medellin v Texas http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-984.pdf). So who knows, maybe she’s right after all! (but no, no not really)

  2. meg says:

    And since when have the Republicans ever cared about following the law or upholding the Constitution? It’s mere semantics!

Leave a Reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

© 2008 Blue in Red Zion: Poorly Spelled, Properly Thought Out.