The Treaty Supremacy Loophole?
Jefferson Rejected the Notion
of Treaty Supremacy
Surely the President and Senate can not do by treaty
what the whole government
is interdicted from doing in any way.
-- Thomas Jefferson
There is a general assumption that Treaties are the Law of the Land. The Constitution says so in Article VI ... but with the added qualifier that they be made under the Authority of the United States. Like any other legislative act, to be valid, they must be in agreement with the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. The doctrine of treaty supremacy over the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Jefferson Foresaw
and Tried to Avert
Government Abuse
by the Doctrine of Treaty Supremacy
THE NATION marches with ever increasing pace into the New World Order, a world government. The Genocide Convention, NAFTA, FTAA, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, IMF, GATT/WTO, World Bank, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child … — all either ratified or being considered, and promulgated under the doctrine of treaty supremacy — are all building blocks of a central world government; and the people, tired of war and threat of war, hail such international cooperation as steps toward peace.
All of these treaties either do, or would, supersede, or override, several provisions and protections of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, subjecting the people of the United States to laws and regulations promulgated by bodies neither elected by, nor accountable to, the voters — with accompanying fines and penalties, and even to trial by foreign courts.
The dangers and treasonous aspects are addressed by Howard Phillips in "Reconstructing the Republic."
But, these words of Jefferson bear repeating here…
What has destroyed the rights of men in every government under the sun? The concentration of all powers in one central body …(letter to Joseph Cabell, February 2, 1816)
The alleged justification for such treaties is the doctrine of treaty supremacy from the Supreme Court decision in the case of Missouri vs. Holland (1920) that powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment could be given to the federal government by a treaty. All they have to do is to get a foreign power to agree -- and the President and Senate, alone, can do anything! Such interpretation effectively trashes the Constitution! The rights of Americans abolished by a treaty!
But the doctrine of treaty supremacy is a unconstitutional.
The part of the Constitution that governs the making of treaties is Article VI, ¶2. It reads,
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
In grammatical analysis we see that "... under the Authority of the United States," is obviously the qualifier of "all Treaties made, or which shall be made;" and the fact that the Constitution refers to itself as “this Constitution,” reveals that “the Constitution” refers to the constitution of any state.
The Missouri vs. Holland decision was obviously based upon grammatical ignorance and in total disregard of the fact that treaties are subject to the Authority of the United States — and also in total disregard of Article III, §2, which, defining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, also refers to constitutional limitation on treaties:
This judicial Power shall extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.
Thus we can see that the doctrine of treaty supremacy is a flawed doctrine from a flawed decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not the Pope!
Since today’s game seems to be “case law” rather than “Constitution,” we, too, can play that game. There is a well established legal principle:
... the intention of the lawmaker constitutes the law.
— Stewart v. Bloom, 11 Wall 493 (1871);
Nat’l RR Passenger Corp. v. Nat’l Assoc. of RR Passengers, 414 US 453, (1974)
A Pure Nugget Discovered in Jefferson’s Manual
Anticipates Government Abuse
by Treaty Supremacy Over the Constitution
Every Congressman may be presumed to be familiar with a document found in the front of the "Rules of the House of Representatives" and, no doubt, also in the "Rules of the Senate." It is the manual compiled by Thomas Jefferson when he was Vice President and, therefore, the President of the Senate. It is the underlying basis for the rules of both houses of Congress. It is simply and logically called: "Jefferson’s Manual."
There is no denying that Thomas Jefferson knew the minds of the Framers about as well as anybody could have, being personally acquainted with most, if not all, of them. The following is quoted from Jefferson’s Manual:
Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation…
If that is the only way it differs, then it is subject to all the Constitutional limitations of other legislation. As if to leave no doubt that treaty supremacy over the Constitution was in no way intended by the Framers, he goes on to say:
The Constitution must have …meant to except…the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate can not do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.…And also to except those subjects of legislation in which it gave a participation to the House of Representatives.
“…under the authority of the United States,” means just that. The authority of the United States is the Constitution. There is no such thing as treaty supremacy. President and Senate cannot do what Government has not been given authority to do. He goes on further to say:
Treaties, being declared equally with the laws of the U.S. to be the supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature alone can declare them infringed and rescinded.
But Jefferson is not our only witness. In The Federalist Papers, Hamilton in #33 and Madison in #44, both give the same sense of the clause. Jay in #64 concurs and adds that a treaty fraudulently obtained would stand null and void. Therefore, any treaty that is not in accord with the Constitution was fraudulently obtained, the treaty supremacy doctrine notwithstanding.
As for the “New World Order,” President Bush, in a September 23, 1991, speech to the UN declared that “nationalist passions” must be stamped out in order to usher in a new era of global government. Perhaps it is not out of line here to note that government, by definition, has power to enforce its edicts — else it is no government. What of his oath of office to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?” The doctrine of treaty supremacy is a dangerous doctrine.
The Good News
Since the treaties cited above -- the Genocide Convention, NAFTA, FTAA, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, IMF, GATT/WTO, World Bank, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- are not in agreement with the Constitution and fraudulently obtained, we only need
a President with whom unconstitutional acts based upon treaty supremacy, or any other fiction, will have no standing.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177, lays it out:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitututionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statue leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general princples follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ...
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded therby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enfforce it. -- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177
In addition to those committed under treaty supremacy, all sorts of clearly unconstitutional acts that remove the government from accountability are being channeled also through judicial usurpation of power, rendering the Constitution meaningless. We need a President with whom such unconstitutional acts will have no standing. The bad news is that without such a President our Constitution and its protections are now as if they did not exist.
Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny
This article is an example of articles gathered from three centuries, contained in ...
The Treasury,
which is bound with ...
Remarkable Remedy
-- by Jean Carpenter
Remarkable Remedy is the second edition of what the late Peggy Poor, Editor of “The Upright Ostrich,” hailed as “the best primer for people to understand” how our predicament came about.
Find out more about it.
Is there anyone on the political scene today
who understands the fraudulent nature of the treaty supremacy doctrine, and who has the wisdom and knowledge to pronounce void all unconstitutional treaties?
Glad you asked! As a matter of fact, there is a such a party. And it has a plan to accomplish this objective.
The Constitution Party is the largest and fastest growing minor party and has been gathering momentum since its founding in 1992. That year its standard bearer, Howard Phillips, was on the ballot in more than 20 states. In 1996 he was on the ballot in more than 30 states. In 2000 he was on the ballot in more than 40 states, and with write-ins was an option in 48 states. The 2004 standard bearer is Michael Peroutka. The goal of the Party is to limit the federal government to the functions delegated to it by the Constitution and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations. It is aware of the nature of the treaty supremacy doctrine, and would
pronounce void all unconstitutional treaties.
Over the years, especially in the 20th Century, and now even more in the 21st, our Constitution has been rendered almost meaningless while our government has become unaccountable.
See how that has been playing out in ways that affect you, and how we can restore accountability.
Have You Information or Knowledge
About Effects of the Treaty Supremacy Doctrine?
If you have knowledge that others need,
or would find interesting,
(who doesn't?)
check into this free course about writing for the 'Net.
Netwriting Masters Course
Want to sell more? Write better. Write smarter.
The *ONLY* course on the Net that shows you how to do BOTH.
It is a pdf ebook, and it's free!
Netwriting Masters Course
WebMaster: Jean Westphal
kidogo@restore-government-accountability.com
This web site built and managed by Jean with
SBI!
Please send comments, suggestions, or requests for links to:
kidogo@restore-government-accountability.com.
(Please put "RGA: Treaty Supremacy?" in the subject line.)
|
