Obama’s Treaties
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 U.S.
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 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 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 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 Hillsdale
University in Michigan Constitutional Republic
Long live the American Republic
de Andréa
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment