tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post1734596844106484929..comments2023-10-08T04:12:46.273-05:00Comments on The Political Environment: Mary Lazich's Idea Of Regionalism: A Free RideJames Rowenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10203270946492159686noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-43232204193432235922008-07-31T11:58:00.000-05:002008-07-31T11:58:00.000-05:00I assume Mary Lazich took the oath of office when ...I assume Mary Lazich took the oath of office when sworn in to serve the state.<BR/><BR/> Wisconsin Statute EB-154 (6/86).<BR/><BR/>"I, (official's name), having been elected or appointed to the office of (title) swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Wisconsin, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of said office to the best of my ability. So help me God."<BR/><BR/>Source: http://elections.state.wi.us/pdf/EB-154 Official Oath.pdf<BR/><BR/>The United States Constitution in article VI states:<BR/><BR/>This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.<BR/><BR/>Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html<BR/><BR/>Given that she has sworn an oath to the US Constitution and that the Constitution holds international treaties as "the supreme law of the land ..." "... anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding," any argument about the law prior to the compact should have included a discussion of our current obligations under the 1908 Boundary Waters Treaty.<BR/><BR/>The Compact is US "enabling legislation" pursuant to the Boundary Waters Treaty. The Canadian law regarding the treaty obligation is here:<BR/><BR/>http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/I-17///en<BR/><BR/>The right wing ideologues tend to sweep away legal fact because the desire to drum up animosity between the uninformed populace and their own government for their own selfish political gain. These loosely treasonous muttering do not negate our Constitution obligations, which include consultation with Canada on water diversions, and in the case of a deadlock, arbitration of disagreements at the International Court of Justice, an organ of the UN.<BR/><BR/>I quote the treaty below:<BR/><BR/>ARTICLE X<BR/><BR/>Any questions or matters of difference arising between the High Contracting Parties involving the rights, obligations, or interests of the United States or of the Dominion of Canada either in relation to each other or to their respective inhabitants, may be referred for decision to the International Joint Commission by the consent of the two Parties, it being understood that on the part of the United States any such action will be by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and on the part of His Majesty's Government with the consent of the Governor General in Council. In each case so referred, the said Commission is authorized to examine into and report upon the facts and circumstances of the particular questions any matters referred, together with such conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate, subject, however, to any restrictions or exceptions which may be imposed with respect thereto by the terms of the reference.<BR/><BR/>A majority of the said Commission shall have power to render a decision or finding upon any of the questions or matters so referred.<BR/><BR/>If the said Commission is equally divided or otherwise unable to render a decision or finding as to any questions or matters so referred, it shall be the duty of the Commissioners to make a joint report to both Governments, or separate reports to their respective Governments, showing the different conclusions arrived at with regard to the matters or questions referred, which questions or matters shall thereupon be referred for decision by the High Contracting Parties to an umpire chosen in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of Article XLV of the Hague Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, dated October 18, 1907. Such umpire shall have power to render a final decision with respect to those matters and questions so referred on which the Commission fail to agree.Joseph Thomas Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07259638384607505768noreply@blogger.com