Time: Mon Oct 13 14:58:06 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA26189;
	Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:43:45 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA02586;
	Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:40:55 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:40:07 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]

>Don't know how many of you may have watched this debate, it was very good!
>Here are some excerpts from it:
> (House of Representatives - October 07, 1997) 
>Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
>I have been a part of the legislative process for 20 years, and I want to
>say to my colleagues, the American public deserves a more upright and
>statement of the facts. I urge my colleagues tomorrow to read the record
>has been created here tonight. I want to tell my colleagues, it is far from
>the truth.
> To make such outlandish statements that the sovereignty act is to take
>the protection of public lands so people can take advantage of them is not
>The American public had very little to say, if anything, at the local
>level, at the 
>State level and at the national level about the biosphere program. It was
>by administrations with no legislative oversight and no legislative funding
>and no 
>legislative input. There is great concern among people around this country
>decisions are going to be made in the future and are currently being made
>world people, people from around the world, and they do not want America 
>governed that way, they want America governed by Americans at the local
>at the State level and at the national level. And for my colleagues on the
>side to make these statements that have been made, and I mean this
>they owe the American public an apology because they have talked about 
>everything but the truth. 
>We heard about this being overreaching and so damaging. We had others call
>it crazy, trivial nonsense, and we had other ones saying it was all done by
>community requests. The American public want to understand world
>and they have a right to. They want to understand international commitments
>our Government makes, and they have a right to. 
>In conclusion, those who want to deprive the average American, those who 
>want to deprive the American citizens from having the right to understand
>biospheres are about, having the right to react to their local government
>or their 
>Congress, whether they agree or disagree, and they may agree, but give them
>the right. When it is not to be publicly debated, people think we have
>to hide when they do not have a shot, they do not have a bite of the apple.
>That is what America is all about. We cannot have too much sunshine, we
>cannot have too much people participation. 
>People in America are concerned about the proposal of world government 
>and other countries making decisions in this country, and generally in a
>percentage they are opposed to that, and we should be sensitive to that
>for the long run of this country, because most other countries do not
>care about the future of America, but Americans do, and they should have 
>the right to understand clearly every agreement, every international
>commitment that is done, and it should be done in the sunshine, and that
> is what this whole bill is about, not the rhetoric we heard a few moments
>Earlier, Mr. Riggs said:
>So that the real problem we have here, I believe, is that we become a party
>to these international land designations. I am glad we are having the 
>opportunity to debate it here now, maybe expose this issue to the
>American people, but by becoming a party to these international land 
>designations, made again by some faceless international council, a lot 
>of us are concerned that the United States of America, the sovereign 
>United States of America, may be indirectly agreeing to terms of
>treaties, such as the Convention on Biodiversity, to which the United
>is not a party and which the United States Senate has refused to ratify. 
>Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska
> [Mr. Young] for yielding me the time. 
>I just want to say that the United States Supreme Court has addressed
>this issue in a very, very interesting case,Fong Yue Ting versus United
>where that highest court in the land wrote: 
>To preserve this Nation's independence and give security against foreign 
>aggression and encroachment constitute the very highest duty of every 
>nation, and to attain these ends, nearly all other considerations are to
>be subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and 
>encroachment come. 
>I believe the Supreme Court understands what we are dealing with. 
>Furthermore, I just want to wind my comments up by saying that 
>George Washington, in a letter dated October 9, 1795, wrote: 
>My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with 
>all engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the United 
>States free from political connections with every other country,
>to see them independent of all and under the influence of none,
>is my ardent desire. 
>I share that. While I believe in a strong and vigorous trade policy,
>the sovereignty of the United States of America is so very important,
>and the protection of private property rights must be protected. 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail