When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism
the-american-interest.comI just want to point out that anybody currently in the United States government who has sworn an oath to the constitution and has signed the required affidavit would be in violation of their oath of office if they advocate the overthrow of our system of government, which includes casual dismissal of our national sovereignty via globalism, and therefor subject to the penalty of removal from office and confinement or a fine.
This to me is the crux of the matter. If you attempt to hand wave away national sovereignty via globalism or even as pdog says regional globalization, you effectively are advocating traitorous policy (unless specifically called for via constitutional means of alteration of the constitution), not only that, but if the US was to embrace that method, it would lose legitimacy as a government. I don't buy for a second this hullaballo about inevitable globalism. Yes, we have global markets that all effect each other, that's not disputable, what is disputable is that we should allow that excuse to further undermine basic principles of national sovereignty, or further, to undermine the national sovereignty of other countries via imperialism wrapped in banners of globalism.
https://youtu.be/RgcdRCWEt4Q?t=5097
Keep in mind that's a Larouche video, so retain a skeptical view.
In legal terms, I think you'd have a hard time making that case in court. IANAL, but just practically, wouldn't this preclude the USA from taking part in international treaties, since they necessarily give some power over US actions to non-US actors?
No because treaties are specifically addressed in the constitution via the treaty clause, but are still lower than the constitution due to the nature of the constitution as the supreme law of the land, and are made part of US law once ratified, therefore no treaty can violate the constitution in any way. (in theory at least). Now, any treaty which does violate the constitution that is attempted to pass would then make those party to negotiating it guilty.
For example, TPP was seen coming down the line, but the powers that be recognized this, which is why they twisted the arm of congress into passing fast-track, in which congress, potentially unconstitutionally, traded powers of treaty review in exchange for ~100 optional objectives from potus. This was legal maneuvering to prevent just such objections when they are going to try to shove TPP and similar nafta 2.0 things down our throats. The other thing they have been doing is calling things trade agreements which are really treaties, but trade agreements fall under different rules.
I would also say that the passage of fast-track is in violation of the nondelgation doctrine, but that's just a principle not a law.
Indeed. Some globalists appear to be attempting to shift the focus of power from the more broad-based coalition undergirding modern democratic nation-states to a smaller transnational coalition of insiders, of which they of course are a part.
I particularly focus on the followers of Leo Strauss for the backroom ideology these people use to justify these kinds of moves.
We're witnessing history as part of a larger Hegelian dialectic. We're not going back to the isolated nation state (that ship sailed a long time ago). However, it's clear that unfettered globalization will give way to something akin to regional spheres of influence.
Thesis: Globalism
Antithesis: Nationalism
Synthesis: Regional Globalization