LAWYERS AND JUDGES AT WAR WITH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

[Twana Blevins]

News with Views

By J.B. Williams
July 6, 2012

Last week’s Supreme Court rulings on ObamaCare, Arizona Immigration and Montana Campaign Finance, in which the high court acted beyond its own constitutional authority and against the Constitution, the States and the People at large, should leave no doubt in any mind that the judiciary is now operating as an elite oligarchy making up law and disregarding the U.S. Constitution and the will of the People free of any accountability.

In November of 1819, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Judge Spencer Roane –

If the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law …

In September 1820, Jefferson acknowledged in a letter to Thomas Ritchie –

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm …

It didn’t take long after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in 1787 before Jefferson would realize just how insidious and dangerous the judiciary would become -- That all of the Founders work to create and protect the Charters of Freedom for all posterity would soon be destroyed from within via an elite oligarchy known as the judiciary.

Today, it is no exaggeration to proclaim that true justice no longer exists in the United States. The government body created for the sole purpose of protecting and preserving freedom and liberty, upholding the Charters of Freedom as the Supreme Law of the Land, is the most insidiously corrupt and dangerous institution in America.

The current usurpations emanating from the Executive Branch and unconstitutional legislative acts by Congress could not persist without a corrupt Judicial Branch. Contrary to modern misrepresentations of law and history, the Founders created three co-equal branches of federal government, each with oversight and restraint powers over the other and all of them accountable to the States and the People of the United States.

Today, the three branches act as one, all in opposition to the States and the People, each providing a cloak of cover under which they all destroy the Charters of Freedom from within the halls of our own government, the most dangerous of them, the judiciary.

As Jefferson realized soon after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, they had failed to tie the hands of the judiciary, preventing lawyers and judges with personal and political agendas from subverting the Constitutional Republic from the bench via precedent setting, broad ungrounded interpretations, new definitions of old language and court procedures designed to protect the evil cabal by denying public access to true justice.

Our Charters of Freedom are literally hanging by a thread today!

Our judiciary has become the most dangerous enemy of the Constitutional Republic and although the Executive Dictatorship and tyrannical Legislative body run close behind, it is the judiciary which must be reclaimed by the people first, or there is no peaceful forum within which to hold the other two branches accountable.

A Lawless Judiciary

Though I can write a book on literally thousands of cases of totally lawless injustice taking place across America today, I have chosen only a few examples for this piece. These cases demonstrate just how lawless our entire judiciary has become. As you will see, there is quite literally nothing within our judicial system worthy of salvation. The corruption reaches from the U.S. Supreme Court all the way down to your local traffic court, and exists at all points in between.

Even Divorce Courts across this country are being run by corrupt Judges like West Virginia Judge William Watkins, using the power of their bench to intimidate, threaten and incarcerate for personal reasons. Watch that video! This is not an isolated behavior from the bench…

Lawlessness on the High Court

It is no longer a secret to any informed person on earth that Barack Hussein Obama is not who he claims to be. It has been proven beyond any doubt that Obama issued three forged birth certifications (not birth certificates) for Hawaii in an effort to squash charges that he is ineligible for the office he holds, not a Natural Born Citizen under Article II. Where he was born is not even at issue. Who his Father is determines his Natural Born birth rights.

Barack Hussein Obama is in fact an imposter of unknown origin, illegally holding the office of President at present, all made possible by the corrupt Supreme Court that issued the oath of office to a known anti-American imposter and continuing to protect Obama still today. The court has refused to hear evidence regarding the imposter Obama on numerous occasions, knowing very well that we have an unconstitutional imposter in the people’s Oval Office. But there is much more…

The High Court was asked a simple YES or NO question regarding ObamaCare, is it Constitutional or not. Instead of performing its sole function of answering this simple fundamental question in the preservation of Constitutional Law, the court chose to assume the political position of legislative branch, altering and upholding a law that is blatantly unconstitutional on its face and in its entirety.

The High Court was asked the same YES or NO question regarding Arizona’s right to protect its sovereignty and security by enforcing standing immigration laws, is it constitutional? Once again, instead of answering that simple fundamental question, the court decided to play legislator, parsing the Arizona law to the liking of the Obama White House, which is standing down on enforcement of our immigration laws and even issuing amnesty by Executive order only days before the courts Arizona ruling. Obama has no such executive authority, but who is stopping him?

The High Court was asked whether or not a hundred-year-old Montana law preventing corporate corruption in state campaign funding was constitutional. The court struck down the hundred-year-old Montana law governing state election practices, an area of no jurisdiction or obvious interest for the Supreme Court.

A total disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law is present in the highest court in our land. This simply cannot stand…

Lawlessness in Lower Courts

Over a hundred cases have been brought in various local, state, district, military and federal courts attempting to present a mountain of evidence against imposter Barack Hussein Obama, all of them dismissed at the door, refusing to hear any evidence, denying the people access to a peaceful forum in which to fully expose the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. No wonder the courts have been fitted with metal detectors and armed guards to protect these judges from the people.

The most recent copy-n-paste Obama dismissal came from Circuit Court Judge Terrance P. Lewis in Tallahassee Florida. Judge Lewis dismissed the case on the bases that Barack Hussein Obama, the current occupant of the White House and presumed Democrat nominee for the 2012 election cycle running uncontested in Florida, is not yet officially the DNC nominee, and therefore, cannot yet be challenged on his eligibility for the office which he seeks re-election.

In addition, Judge Lewis, upon hearing no evidence at all, declared the following in his dismissal with prejudice –

 

No such stated rulings have ever happened. Yet, like several other judges, Lewis attempts to establish via precedent setting, the notion that “anchor baby” (anyone born on U.S. soil) is the proper definition of Natural Born Citizen of the United States, a claim which is laughable on its face. These judges are simply re-writing Article II of the U.S. Constitution from the bench while flatly refusing to hear any evidence at all on the matter from the people or the states.

On no less than eight occasions leading up to the swearing in of Barack Hussein Obama, members of congress attempted and failed to alter or abolish the Natural Born ... clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. But these judges are altering and abolishing Article II requirements from the bench, using the settled definition of “citizen” to define “Natural Born Citizen” as if there is no difference between true Natural Born Citizens as defined by the Founders and Vattel, and anchor baby, defined by 14th Amendment immigration and naturalization statutes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

On another front, the story of Retired Navy Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick began back in 2009 when Fitzpatrick attempted to deliver evidence against imposter Barack Hussein Obama to his local Tennessee Grand Jury, a practice allowed by Tennessee law but not by the terminally corrupt Monroe County system.

Of course, Fitzpatrick was denied access to deliver that evidence to the sitting Grand Jury of Monroe County Tennessee in 2009 and has since uncovered massive systemic corruption, fraud and abuse of power running wild in Monroe County Tennessee, a condition which now exists in nearly every county in the country.

Fitzpatrick has since proven that the Monroe County Grand Jury was illegally convened for more than twenty-years and remains illegally convened today despite getting Gary Pettway removed from his life-long career as jury foreman, a condition that could not legally exist under Tennessee law, but does exist across Tennessee.

Fitzpatrick has been arrested, had his home and property destroyed and confiscated, incarcerated five times, beaten by Monroe County Sherriff’s and falsely labeled a crackpot, a sovereign citizen, a violent potential domestic terrorist and worse.

Last week, Fitzpatrick attended a hearing on motions for new charges accusing him of tampering with and stealing official government documents. He picked up an information packet for new jurors found on a table at the court house and took it home to study jury procedures. I remind readers that every court house is the property of the people, as is every court produced document.
Monroe County SWAT hit his home with force again that night, seizing Fitzpatrick’s property and effects, arresting, brutalizing and incarcerating Fitzpatrick again.

His hearing on motions last week provided another look at the runaway judiciary. Fitzpatrick presented evidence in his motions that the indictments against him were forged. The judge denied discovery to uncover who actually signed the indictments against him since the person named on the indictment did not sign the documents.

Fitzpatrick presented hard evidence that the Monroe County juries remain illegally convened, a fact which both the judge and the prosecutor had no choice but to admit in open court. However, the judge set trial for September, stating that they do things their own way in Monroe County and are in no way obligated to follow Tennessee law. They can essentially do whatever they want and Monroe County justice has been doing exactly that for decades now.

Fitzpatrick will once again face an unknown accuser, based upon a forged indictment, before an illegally convened jury and a judge who couldn’t care less. Of course the case will proceed…

Lawlessness in Your Local Traffic Court

Now for my personal story of crime and corruption at the lowest levels…

On the way to drop my sick dog at the vet and the kids at school one morning, I made a “legal” vehicular maneuver, cutting to the right of backed up traffic, emergency lights on, remaining on the road at approximately 5 MPH to turn into the veterinarians office and get my dog out of the car, stopping him from vomiting all over the back of my SUV.

A local officer was waiting in the backed up traffic, I saw him and he saw me. He followed me into the vet’s lot and proceeded to give me a traffic ticket for making a “legal movement” in the amount of $165.00

A few days later, I called the court to inquire about my options. I was told that the ticket was for a $5.00 fine and $160 court costs. I logically asked if I could simply pay the $5.00 fine and pass on taking up the court’s time, even though I was charged with making “a legal turn.” The court clerk advised that I owed court costs whether I appeared in court or not, so I might as well appear and fight the ticket. Astonished by what I had just learned, I agreed to appear in court.

In court, the ticketing officer presented his version of the story, perjuring himself with blatant lies as if he didn’t even remember the incident. He showed his dash-cam video of me making a “legal turn.” The judge then read Tennessee statute confirming that the type of maneuver, clearly seen on the dash-cam, was indeed “legal” according to Tennessee law.

And then, the judge found me guilty of making a “legal turn” and fined me $5.00 plus $160 court costs. I owed the city $165.00 for making a “legal” turn. When I asked the judge how this could be, he became notably frustrated. He said it was his opinion that I did not make the “legal turn” safely.
Note that the judge, now a witness, was not present at the incident.

Then the judge explained, “Just because I can drive down the highway at 100 MPH without wrecking does not mean I did it safely….” -- To which I reminded the judge that there are laws against driving down the highway at 100 MPH. The judge slammed his gavel, and I paid the city $165.00 for making a “legal” turn.

Lesson learned…. Judges are free to make up their own laws on the spot. They do NOT have to follow the law, or the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights or anything else. They are free to arrest, charge, fine and incarcerate anyone for any reason at all, usually motivated by money or politics. Jefferson’s fears had come full circle at even the lowest levels of the judiciary.

Us vs. Them

According to current government documents, there are approximately 874 Article III appointed judges in the United States at present and best I can tell, not one of them worth saving. Nine on the Supreme Court, 179 on the courts of appeals, 9 on the court of international trade and 677 for the district courts.

874 Article III judges are directly engaged in injustice, the subversion of the U.S. Constitution and Rule of Law and none of the destruction happening to our once great nation could happen without these 874 judicial criminals.

Those of you, who think the problem can be solved by any future election, fail to grasp the full gravity, the depth and breadth of the situation. Note that both Reagan and Bush appointed Supreme Court justices who later acted against the Constitution, just like the Democrat appointed justices. Further…

It is the judiciary which started dismantling the U.S. Charters of Freedom before the ink was dry on those documents and they have been destroying our Constitutional Republic every day since, via precedent.

Beware the lawyer, the judge and most of all, the self-proclaimed “constitutional scholar…” for it is they who have worked around the clock to destroy the Constitutional Republic, raising themselves up as an unchecked oligarchy free to rule over the people in all matters large and small.

Beware the American Bar Association, the leftist labor union of the legal system, which accounts for about 40% of our nation’s lawyers and 99% of our judges.

Beware the so-called constitutional think tanks that now spew the same anti-American subversive lies spewed by our illegal administration and corrupted legislature like Heritage Foundation, Eagle Forum and Wall Builders, all of whom are selling the lies that States lost their rights in the Civil War and that anchor baby is Natural Born Citizen. Once again, Jefferson has been proven right, more a visionary than Nostradamus.

In a letter to Mr. Jarvis dated September 1820, Jefferson wrote –

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves …. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves.

Americas Nuremburg Moment

In Nazi Germany, it was the judges, the judiciary which played the most insidious role of sending Jews and Christians to Hitler’s ovens and gas chambers. Likewise, in America circa 2012, it is the judges who have done the most damage to the U.S. Charters of Freedom and who have instead of being the people’s protectors, have become the people’s worst enemies operating within at great taxpayer expense.

Just as the judges of Nazi Germany were brought to justice, so shall 874 U.S. Judges face justice for their actions one day.

The United States of America was born a Constitutional Republic of free people endowed by their Creator with certain fundamental rights that no man, including lawyers and judges, can alienate.

Our Founders told us what to do when we arrive at such a horrific moment in history…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson was right here to - "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

Like a worm eating our freedom and liberty from within, the judiciary must be stopped before there is no freedom or liberty left in America.

 

The illegitimate Obama administration has done more damage to the Constitutional Republic than any prior administration. But the damage done by Obama and Clinton is nothing compared to the ongoing assault on our Republic coming from the judiciary.

 

Our Founders took great care to write and ratify the Charters of Freedom is very simple English so that any citizen with a 5th Grade reading capacity and access to a dictionary could easily and correctly interpret those documents and protect their own rights.

The idea that anyone needs a lawyer or judge to interpret for them the content of the Charters of Freedom is both overtly silly and equally dangerous. If you do not know your rights without the help of lawyers and judges, you don’t have any rights.

The people can no longer entrust their constitutional rights to a runaway judiciary operating above and beyond the law. Without a legitimate judiciary, there is no peaceful forum in which to right any other wrong.

© 2012 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

---

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America.

 

 

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

E-Mail: [e-mail]

 

 

[Chaplain Thomas Gilbert Cole]

"{ALL}" unconstitutional laws, regulations, rules, etc. are Null and Void!

[Twana Blevins]

Publius-Huldah's Blog
Understanding the Constitution

 

A Defense of the U.S. Constitution From Its Domestic Enemies.

by Publius Huldah

If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’ “Climate Change” Conference in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of  the Land?

We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”.  But is that True?  Not necessarily!  Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.

You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution?  Let us start at the beginning:

1.  Does the federal government have authority to make treaties?  Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?

Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…

Article VI, cl. 2 says:

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. [emphasis added]

Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties.  Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.

2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word & phrase.  The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.

So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.

3.  From where do the President and the Senate get Authority to act?  From The Constitution.  The objects of their lawful (as opposed to usurped) powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President and Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty made by them on that subject qualifies as part of  “the supreme Law of the Land”.  If the Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to act on a subject, the Treaty is not “Law” – it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33, 6th para). Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law (Federalist No. 78,  10th -11th paras), it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, & all judicial decisions is measured. (e.g., Federalist No. 78, 9^th para).

4.  The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to The American People to induce them to ratify it.  Because of this, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the meaning of The Constitution.  Thus, we must always consult The Federalist to learn what it says about any constitutional provision.  In Federalist No. 44 (7^th para from end), James Madison said that a treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State:

…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added]

Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist on this point. So, let us turn to Thomas Jefferson:

In giving to the President and 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: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]

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. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]

According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]

5. So!  We see from the above that the treaty making power of the United States is very limited! What, then, are the proper objects of treaties?  To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President and the Congress to do! The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 11).  The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2).

The Federalist Papers discuss the treaty making power of the United States.  John Jay said treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd and 6th paras).  Madison said treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors and consuls and to commerce. (Federalist No. 42, 1st and 3rd paras).

In addition, Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”.  Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents and copyrights.

6. Now, let us consider the proposed “climate change” treaty.  There exists somewhere a 200 page draft agreement which, during December 2009, is to be hammered out, put into final form, and signed in Copenhagen. If signed by Obama and ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?

To answer that Question, we must first ask:  Does The Constitution authorize Congress to make laws about the objects of the proposed “climate change” treaty?  One wants to see the actual 200 page draft agreement, but it appears, from various web sites, that the gist of the scheme is for the governments of the “rich” nations to reduce the “greenhouse gas emissions” within their borders and to send money to the “poor” nations to bribe them to sign the treaty and to compensate them for our “past emissions”.  There seem also to be provisions for entrepreneurs like AlGore to sell “carbon offset credits” or “emission reduction units” to those who emit more than “their share” of  “greenhouse emissions”.  [By the way, from where does AlGore get them to sell?]

And just what, pray, are “greenhouse emissions”?  Primarily, carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor.  Carbon dioxide: the gas which humans and other animals exhale, and which plants must have for photosynthesis [sounds like a good system to me].  Methane: The gas which animals belch. All very easy to control:  Kill most of the people and most of the animals!  Shut down our remaining industries.  Stop the cars. Turn off the electricity.  Cut off supplies of propane.  Prohibit the burning of wood. And water vapor! Oh! We must stop poisoning the world with Water!

So!  The Questions are these: Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting the reduction of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc. “emissions”? Is transferring wealth from Americans to “poor” nations to compensate them for our “past emissions”, one of the enumerated powers of Congress?  Does The Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor?

The answer is NO! Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the “climate change” treaty, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States.  It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such.   Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties.  It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.

7. While the statist-in-chief will surely sign a Treaty in Copenhagen, ratification requires two thirds of the Senators present (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.2).  Are we such a corrupt people that we elected 67 U.S. Senators who will vote to ratify the Treaty?  But even if 67 faithless Senators vote to ratify it, then we may take heart from the words of  James Madison in Federalist No. 44 (16th para):

… in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…

and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):

…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 [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….

Read again the foregoing passages! The statists can not enslave us without our acquiescence. For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say.  Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme law of the land!”  We are told that “The Rule of Law” requires us to obey every order, law, court opinion, or treaty coming out of the federal government.  And not only do we believe such nonsense, we repeat it to others.  And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network.  In order to restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover the lost art & science of Learning, Thinking and Analysis.  And then, we must learn to say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!”  Pay attention to the words of our beloved James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. PH

October 27, 2009

The Treaty Making Power of the United States

TREATIES: Part Of The Supreme Law Of The Land???

By Publius Huldah

If the United States Senate ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, will that UN Convention become part of the supreme Law of the Land? [1] If the Senate ratifies the proposed cap and trade “climate” treaty, will that become part of the supreme Law of the Land? [2]

We hear it said that whenever the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”.  But is that True?  Not necessarily!  Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.

You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution?

1.  Does the federal government have authority to make treaties?  Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?

Art II, §2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…

Article VI, cl. 2 says:

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. [emphasis added]

Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties.  Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.

2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) [3] that one must give effect to every word & phrase.  The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.

So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.

3.  From where do the President & the Senate get Authority to act?  From The Constitution.  The objects of their lawful (as opposed to usurped) powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President & Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty made by them on that subject qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”.  If the Constitution does not authorize the President & Congress to act on an object, the Treaty is not “Law” – it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such. [4] Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law, [5] it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, & all judicial decisions is measured. [6]

4.  The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to The People to induce them to ratify it.  Because of this, The Federalist Papers are the most authoritative commentary on the meaning of The Constitution.  Thus, we must always consult The Federalist Papers to learn what they say about any constitutional provision.  In Federalist No. 44 (7^th Para from end), James Madison said that a treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State:

…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added] [7]

Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist on this point.  So, let’s turn to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: [8]

In giving to the President and 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: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]

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. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]

According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]

5. So!  We have seen that the treaty making power of the United States is limited!   What, then, are the proper objects of treaties?  To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President & the Congress to do in this area! The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, § 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, § 8, cl. 11).  The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, §2, cl. 2).

The authors of The Federalist Papers commented on the treaty making power of the United States.  John Jay said treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd & 6th Paras).  Madison said treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors & consuls and to commerce.  (Federalist No. 42, 1st & 4th Paras).

There may be additional objects of the treaty making power authorized in The Constitution.  For example, Art I, § 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries“.  Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents & copyrights. [9]

6. Let’s look now at the proposed U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.  If ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?

To answer that Question, we must first ask:  Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting “children”?  Does The Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over “children”?

The answer to both questions is “NO!” In addition, the 10th Amendment says if a power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, it is [generally] reserved to the States or the people  Thus, jurisdiction over “children” is reserved to the States or the People!  Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States.  It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such.

If the Senate were to ratify the cap-and-trade “climate” treaty, which, among other things, would force energy companies to buy allowances or permits for their “carbon emissions”, would it become part of  “the supreme law of the Land”?  You are now equipped to find the answer, and you can confidently defend it!

Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties.  It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.

7.  Finally, Thomas Jefferson pointed to a legislative remedy if the President and the Senate ignore the constitutional limits on the treaty making power of the United States; or even if  they enter into a treaty which is permitted by the Constitution but of which the House disapproves.  Thomas Jefferson said: [10]

We conceive the constitutional doctrine to be, that though the President and Senate have the general power of making treaties, yet wherever they include in a treaty matters confided by the Constitution to the three [did he mean, "two"?] branches of Legislature, an act of legislation will be requisite to confirm these articles, and that the House of Representatives, as one branch of the Legislature, are perfectly free to pass the act or to refuse it, governing themselves by their own judgment whether it is for the good of their constituents to let the treaty go into effect or not. –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1796. ME 9:329 [emphasis added]

I was glad… to hear it admitted on all hands, that laws of the United States, subsequent to a treaty, control its operation, and that the Legislature is the only power which can control a treaty. Both points are sound beyond doubt.–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1798. ME 10:41

What a man! And our system of checks & balances is an elegant one, indeed!

8.  Folks!  For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say.  Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme law of the land!”  And not only do we believe it, we repeat it to others.  And thus, we became part of  the misinformation dissemination network.  In order to restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover the lost art & science of Thinking & Analysis.  And then, we must learn to say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!”

Publius Huldah

September 18, 2009; revised Oct. 11, 2011

---

[1]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treat...

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BusinessofGreen/idUSTRE51Q22L200...

[3] Educators no longer  teach “rules of construction”, because it has become the dogma of our time that texts have no “objective meaning” to be discovered.  Instead, each person is to come up with his own “understanding” – and one person’s “understanding” is as good as another’s.  A friend recalls the following incident which occurred in an high school English class during 1960:  The class read a short story, & then the teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him.  Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher.  But when it was my friend’s turn, he said:  “It doesn’t matter what it means to me – what matters is what the author meant.”  The teacher was not pleased with this ‘out of place’ comment.  Is it any wonder many judges feel free to “understand” the Constitution any way they please?  They were conditioned in school to “think” this way; and they did not resist the conditioning.

[4] In Federalist No. 33 (7^th Para),  Alexander Hamilton pointed to Art. VI, cl.2, and said that laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such.

[5] The Federalist No. 78 (12^th & 13^th Paras), A. Hamilton.

[6] The Federalist No. 78 (11^th Para), states:  “There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  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.” A. Hamilton.

[7] Madison thus showed why  it was necessary that  Art. VI, cl. 2 grant to Treaties  supremacy over State Constitutions.

[8]  See the Univ. of Virginia website at    http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm   for these and more quotes on the same subject.

[9] It has been said that Charles Dickens’ works were pirated, printed and sold in these United States without paying any royalties to Dickens!  A copyright treaty with Great Britain might have discouraged this theft of Dickens’ intellectual property.

[10] http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm

[Johnny Smith]

Great post Twana, thanks.

[Carl Swensson]

Key words in all this... Us vs Them.

It's no longer a question of IF the festivities will begin but WHEN.

The battle of Athens, TN in 1946 is something that must be repeated across the Nation as this foreign and alien form of government reminds us of just how far they are willing to stray from the Rule of Law.

Yep, us against them.

Ready, willing and able.

[gene r swank]

Just as the UN gun control treaty is not constitutional and according to our Supreme Court that ruled twice that any Unconstitutional law is Null and Void and can not be enforced. We are at war with the damocrats and the Rinos along with the fraud in the White House. We need to demand that they all be arrested, tried and found guilty of TREASON. Then publicly hung as a warning to the rest. The people will not put up with there lies and misstruths any more. Buy precious metals Lead and Brass!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Robert James Burkholder]

T'anks-- In 1858 Mr.Lincoln  gave a speech based upon Scripture  :"A house divided against itself cannot  stand." Now In 1988 Sanford Levinson published a book titled  Constitutional Faith ,Princeton University Press. Where he admitted the Judiciary is divided against itself. With one group believing in the Constitution and the other group believing in the Constitution plus  And likened the Judiciary t the competing sect of Catholicism and the Protestant Christianity. Add what he said to what you have said so well and can see America-- we've got a problem. Not only is our Judiciary divided against itself but the Congress is divided against the people who elect them-- and is itself a House divided against itself. Our two Party system has been as factious and divisive as at least one of our Founders suggested of Parties. And our mere politicians and the Press that serves them-as well as our educators have divided the nation against itself to secure their power. And I agree with Scripture  A house or nation divided against  itself cannot stand.

[GERALDINE HALL]

This is all true.  That's why they want to take our guns, weapons and ammunition.  Do they really think that our men and women are just going to give up.  Sure, there are many that have their heads in the sand and don't want to admit what is happening.  But we are ready, willing and able.  That's why they are trying their very best to divide our country.  Our first patriots purposely put GOD in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Money, the Judicial System, the education system, and more.

We have to bring God back into our lives to conquer this evil.  We have allowed the government to remove God from our country.  We were raised with God being a big part of our lives.  God didn't leave us, we left him.  Now he expects us to fight for our independence again.  We have to prove to God that we want him in our lives....this fight is good against evil.  God against the U.S government...

[Donnie Roberts]

You are so right

[wayne smyly]

Some say they will starve people out and then offer food for guns..Some cities already offering money for people to turn in guns..

God against Satan and his followers that are out to takes us down with them

[Twana Blevins]

wayne will you please post reference links for what you said?

[Ronald King]

Out  here  in  L.A.  county  every  monthly  quarter  ``GUN  --  BUY--  IN,""   next  one  is  August, 2012,   not  all  states  do  It..!!

[G Miller]

Wow- stunning. I know all judges aren't like that, but I have seen or heard of so many horrible examples over the years that it is evident that something is terribly wrong.