Obama is trying to despotically “CHANGE”
America from a
Sovereign Nation into an International communist State by adopting UN treaties
that he knows violate the
Constitution. Can he do that? Maybe - but not legally. Do you know the Constitution? This is a must read for all Freedom loving
By de Andréa
June 22, 2012
Did you know that sitting before the U.S. Senate right now; there are three United Nations' international treaties that are - in form and substance opposed to our Constitution, detrimental to our liberty as Americans, and incompatible with our sovereignty as a
. They are the so-called UN
Treaty ("Rio Treaty – Convention on Biological Diversity" or code
named “Agenda 21”), the Law
of the Sea Treaty ("LOST"), and the UN
Gun Control Treaty ("UN Arms Trade Treaty"). These
are all UN treaties that every American president until
now has rejected. Constitutional Republic
Treaties, what they are, and what they are not
Power to create treaties was established in Article 2, Section 2, and Clause 2 of the Constitution. The power to create a treaty is delegated by the people to the president with approval of a two thirds vote of the Senate. The Supremacy Clause then states… "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."
There is so much misunderstanding regarding the constitutionality of Treaties, as well as the doctrines of the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause, that when you aggregate this misunderstanding, our government is able to reach magnificent proportions of corruption and unconstitutional activity. Our Founders were very clear, and it's time we listen to them instead of Congressmen and Judges who have had no training on – and apparently no loyalty to – the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution. It’s really not that difficult, one only need the desire.
The power to create treaties was vested in the president AND the Senate after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation created a federal government ‘so small’ that it could not successfully complete the tasks it was delegated to accomplish.
James Madison explains in Federalist #45 that the power delegated to the federal government was one of very limited proportions: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… (and) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."
Our federal government was designed among other things, to be our national representative to the foreign world; a representative of the country in foreign relations. Because we lived in a world where nations were led by Kings, Czars, Emperors and Dictators, we needed to have a way that all the states could have a unified voice for negotiations and commerce.
During the Articles of Confederation, our federal government could not collect taxes or even compel the delegates to show up to work and do their job, in other words no “Rite of Mandamus”. The federal government was attempting to make agreements with foreign nations and was defaulting on these agreements because they had no authority to enforce them equally throughout the states and the states themselves were suffering the greatest consequences. As reported in The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, written December 12, 1787, this very point was addressed: "It was found that our national character was sinking in the opinion of foreign nations. The Congress could make treaties of commerce, but could not enforce the observance of them. We were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations, who had shackled our commerce, while we were unable to retaliate. And all now agreed that it would be advantageous to the union to enlarge the powers of Congress; that they should be enabled in the amplest manner to regulate commerce, and to lay and collect duties on the imports throughout the
." United States
So, why were treaties given "supremacy"? The collective decision was made to not only delegate the power of treaties to the president and Senate but to also to classify its relevance in enforcement to the states. There was great debate over this issue, as many were concerned that by designating this power, it would elevate the treaties above the very Constitution itself.
Fortunately for us, this argument was made, because the rebuttal to this argument is vital in understanding the limitations and scope of treaties. Without these explanations, treaties created by the federal government might justifiably supersede the Constitution. Good thing for us that these treaties having been so debated, although they may attempt to supplant the Constitution, are plainly not justified in doing so.
Treaties are not law, they are contracts governed by law
Our Founders repeatedly stated that treaties were, for every purpose and application, CONTRACTS, agreements with foreign nations to accomplish the duties obligated in those four delegated powers
power of making treaties is, plainly, neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the
subsisting laws, nor to the enacting of new ones; and still less to an exertion
of the common strength. Its objects are
CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from
the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the
sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign.” Federalist #75 Madison
Although these Contracts were not considered a subdivision of laws or even new laws altogether, it was necessary that they were binding upon the states to prevent the failures seen by our Founders in the Articles of Confederation. "These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.” Federalist #64
These treaties were not designed to be untouchable. They were subject to the very same checks and balances of every act of the federal government. They could fail if they didn't meet the proper standards. One way they could fail is if they attempted to infringe upon or utilize a power that had not been granted to them through the Constitution as found in the Tenth Amendment. They were to be bound and fettered by all the limitations of power inherent in the Constitution through the specific delegated powers and the Necessary and Proper and General Welfare Clauses.
That statement might sound like an oxymoron; to think that the Necessary and Proper and General Welfare Clauses were meant to bind Congress. Because we have become so detached from the Founders' intent, we have allowed these clauses to become an expansion of power, a consequence that our Founders thought an abomination. So, if a treaty attempted to assume a power that was not previously delegated, for instance to bind upon the states agreement for an object outside of the realm of war, peace, or foreign commerce, it would be deemed unconstitutional. "I insisted that in giving to the President. & Senate a power to make treaties, the constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect by way of treaty any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1793.
"By the general power to make treaties, the constitution intended to comprehend only those subjects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated… It meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800.
The limitation imposed by our Founders on treaties is that they MUST NOT be in conflict with the Constitution. If a treaty is in direct conflict with, let's say the Second Amendment, such as the UN Gun Control Treaty now sitting in the Senate, that treaty would be considered unconstitutional. Treaties were established as a law to maintain the credibility and honor of an agreement with a foreign nation, but they were NEVER supposed to be superior to the Constitution. There is no law of men superior to the Constitution.
Pictured is a monument to the sentiments of the UN, located in front of the UN building.
"No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.“ Federalist #78
But what are we to do when these treaties fail the tests of Constitutional limitations? I have heard it ignorantly mentioned that “we are stuck with these treaties short of another treaty supplanting them or a Constitutional Amendment”. This perspective is again not consistent with our Founders' explanations. In fact, our Founders wanted us to know that if a treaty was in opposition to the Constitution, there were significant consequences. "If they [the President & Senate] act corruptly, they can be punished; and if they make disadvantageous treaties, how are we to get rid of those treaties? As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained. But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations.” Federalist #64 Even though the Founders thought it “too gross and too invidious to be entertained”, they obviously could not comprehend an “Obama”, they nevertheless addressed the possible Issue, in the event that the government ever become as grossly corrupt as it is today.
There is no qualification in that statement that this treaty be replaced or a Constitutional Amendment be written. The simple fact is this treaty would be a "fraudulent contract" and would be of no effect. At this point, the states would be justified constitutionally to tell the federal government that they will not honor or enforce the treaty, (nullification). “We do not live in a Kingdom and the power of our government is not derived from a King. We do live in a Republic and the power of our government is derived from the people. It is always the responsibility of the PEOPLE to be the ultimate check and balance.” I think that Alexander Hamilton made this point abundantly clear in Federalist #33:
"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a Constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded… would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution." Federalist #33
Every day our federal government seems to operate more and more under the assumption that their power is derived in the manner of a Kingdom, it is essential that the people, from which its true power is derived, stand against this tyranny and restore the balance of power. We cannot do this unless we first understand the exceptional principles under which this nation was established. We cannot do this unless we REQUIRE the Representatives of “We the Sovereign People” to operate under these principles.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803.)
“Clearly, a federal law which is contrary to the Constitution is no law at all; it is null, void, invalid. And a Supreme Court decision, which is not a ‘law,’ has no ‘supremacy’—even if it is faithfully interpreting the Constitution. So it is the height of absurdity to claim that a Supreme Court decision that manifestly violates the Constitution is the ‘supreme law of the land.’” (William Jasper)
THE BOTTOM LINE: One must clearly understand that in a “Representative Republic,” which is what the United States of America ‘is’ under the U.S. Constitution. We the people hire a portion of the people to represent the main body of the people in government. That to delegate the authority of the People to the representatives does not mean that we delegate the law or the power. The people retain the power and the law in the form of the constitution which was written to protect the “PEOPLE”.
A little more than a year ago the U.S. Constitution was read for the first time in history before the whole body of Congress. Regardless of the fact that likely most of the members of Congress have a law degree, I believe that I can safely say that this was the first time that many of our representatives had ever heard the whole constitution. In keeping with that premise I can also say that the majority of the Congress has no cognitive understanding or respect of the supreme law of
I believe recent legislations of the
Congress bears that out. America
One must also understand that the majority of our representatives are a product of our own now perverted educationally system both public and private, where the constitution among other basic truths of history is no longer taught. And unless one is a law student and specifically a constitutional law student one is not likely to have ever read the constitution. Further, just because one is a constitutional law student also doesn’t mean that the individual has any knowledge of the spirit and intent of the Supreme law, much less any respect for it.
So! Where does that leave the “PEOPLE”? In the same place it always has, and that is in the place of responsibility. It is the responsibility of the “people” to know constitutional law, the history of it, the spirit of it, and the intent of it. Because what is being manufactured in many law schools these days are not people who respect the law, but those who are taught how to manipulate the law and how to circumvent it.
Read my article titled “Torch the U.S. Constitution” in it you will find a link to a free course on the “real” American Constitution at
University in .
When I took the course it wasn’t free.
So there is no longer any excuse for ignorantly allowing your
representatives to surreptitiously destroy your country, your Michigan ,
and your freedom. Constitutional Republic
Long live the
. American Republic