Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Do Treaties Supersede The Constitution?

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal Los Angeles - September 4, 2000 ____________________________________________________ Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment

      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles - September 4, 2000
      Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-TH,  6-7 pm P.T.
      Dear BC:
          Having brought in the fresh batch of emails, and yours being the instant one facing me at this moment, I will take this opportunity of addressing your points.
          In logical order of authority, of course is God the Creator. God instituted inalienable rights. These are rights that supersede the Constitution and any document that could possibly be created by man.     Inalienable rights do not come from or originate from the Constitution. If we had no Constitution, we would still, by nature, have inalienable rights. Inalienable rights cannot be altered, abolished, improved, or impaired by Congress, nor did our Founding Fathers intend that it presume to do so.
          The states created the Constitution. The Constitution created the federal government (including Congress.) The power of Congress is limited specifically to that set forth in the Constitution, and they have no power beyond that.
          Article II, Sec. 2, clause 2, authorizes the President to initiate treaties by and with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. Treaties then, do not involve the House of Representatives, which are the representation of the people, as opposed to the Senate (who, at the time, were the voice of the state legislatures.) Since treaties did not involve the voice or representation of the people, treaties were not considered anything on par with amendments to the Constitution, which required two-thirds of BOTH houses to even make a proposed amendment, which could only take effect provided there was also three-quarters of the states ratifying such proposal. Article V. (I might add here, that even a proposed tax has to originate with the House of Representatives, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." Article I, Sec. 7, clause 1, which implies that a bill  raising revenue is of higher significance than a treaty.) 
          Here, we can clearly see that the standard for amendments is extremely much higher than for a presidential treaty. It would be absurd to suggest that the Constitution could be amended by the President, with consent of only two-thirds of the Senate, when the Constitution itself, which authorizes treaties, requires for amendment the concurrence of both houses and three-quarters of the states. Our Founding Fathers were more intelligent than to write such an absurdity. Treaties were considered of much less stature than the Constitution itself, just as the laws which are enacted in pursuance thereof.
          Now, let me address the supremacy clause, Article VI, clause 2.
      It starts out, "This Constitution,..." This must be understood in context and the concerns of those setting up our Republic. Since there was, at the time of writing, no Union of States, there was only one objective in this wording, and that was to have each of the then thirteen colonies agree to a uniform recognized federal standard, i.e., a federal government governed by an established document, i.e., the Constitution.
          This was not even thought of as placing "the laws of the United States" or "all treaties... under the authority of the United States" on par with the Constitution, but to have each of the states agree to a specifically LIMITED federal authority, thus creating the Union. They did not want any state thereafter saying, "We do not recognize federal laws or treaties in our state." No state, by its ratification, was agreeing to laws and treaties superseding their states sovereignty. (Sovereignty only as to the federal government, not to the people.)
          Had any state understood the proposition of the supremacy clause of Article VI, clause 2 to be as is commonly bandied about today, they certainly would have never ratified the Constitution. They jealously guarded their state's sovereignty which is reflected in the  Ninth and Tenth Amendments, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (IX) and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." (X). Does this sound like a willingness to have treaties supersede the rights of the people or of the respective states? No way!
          Now, let me explain the reasoning of our Founding Fathers in giving treaties such low standing. All the states had agreed to a common LIMITED standard to which they laid to rest any debate, to wit, a federal Constitution. Treaties had absolutely no effect upon the states. It was not their concern, and thus of little relevance. It only had bearing upon the limited powers of a federal government in relation to foreign powers, nothing more! Obviously the power to enter agreements with foreign powers were limited in its effect of nation to nation, but absolutely could not affect the internal rights within this nation. Had that not been understood, as I said, no state would have ratified the Constitution. There would have been no point in having a federal Constitution to secure and protect those rights. Any other understanding would be preposterous!
          We need to get off this idea that treaties have equal or superior standing to the Constitution. Such proposition not only complicates the real issue, but tends to lend "credibility" to those who are intent upon the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic by use of treaties. As I have argued above, this is a total misunderstanding of the supremacy clause, and what it actually says and meant!
          Now, let me regress back to the subject of "inalienable rights." Such rights cannot be defined away by terminology. Whether "People" or "Persons," those God-given rights are retained by warm-blooded, living human beings. Corporations, of course, are not "warm-blooded human beings," and have no inalienable rights. So I think the "People v. Persons" argument is irrelevant. Looking into the eyes of a human being is easily distinguishable from a corporation, and hardly needs dissertation or argument. Names of human beings in full caps or lower case does not alter or affect their inalienable rights. One is not a slave because he is told he is a slave or deceived into thinking he is one. He is still "by nature, free and independent, and has inalienable rights!" No man, not even Congress, can change that absolute fact! One may call anyone anything, but that fact still remains, deception notwithstanding!
          Now, let's talk about the effects JAIL will have upon all this. Can anyone imagine a judge arguing in his defense before the Special Grand Jury that everyone in this country has been deceived, and that he is operating under that deception? WOW! And, yes, after the close of the case, this judge's argument will be made openly public. It will be the eulogy and death knell of the entire system in one swift blow. I'd love to see it! JAIL forces every false presumption that could possibly be argued by a judge in his defense into the full light of day. I dare say, the system would absolutely forbid one of its own to indict the entire system by making such an argument to save his own neck.
          So, let us get back to the basics. JAIL is the ONLY answer this country will ever know, and let us not be distracted by all the folderol.
      The truth shall set us free, and that is what JAIL will do.   

      --Original Message--

          I would like to point out one thing that you're missing in your
      "Constitutional litmus test".  The fact that there is one law that
      supersedes even the Constitution, the law of treaties.  It was a treaty that created the "corporate" USA and it is under treaty that all those
      "employees" work rather than the Constitution. 
          The redeeming factor here is that under those treaties, only "persons" NOT "people" are affected.  If you look up the definition of "person" in Black's Law 3rd (the legal definitions at the time of ratification of the treaties) it states that a person is "...any entity, generally other than a human being...".  It is the "corporate" you (the one with the SSN/EIN and the name spelled in all caps) that these guys go after not the "human" you. Unless you let them know who you are, they'll crucify you. 
          I've seen this work many of times and I've used it a few times myself. While I agree with J4J and it's purposes, I strongly disagree with your reasoning as to why many things in the judicial system happen, particularly with regard to "family court". 
          We need to sit down and discuss this stuff in person sometime soon.


      J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      Use header to subscribe or to remove: jail4judges@...
      All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at jail4judges@egroups.com
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.