Right up Front – NOTE:
“TREATIES DO NOT SUPERSEDE THE CONSTITUTION”
ONE ANSWER TO VOIDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL TREATIES
Although it is not commonly known, there is a principle in International Law that the Congress can use to void treaties! What has to happen is that the people must first create a demand for public officials to initiate action to cause the United Nations Charter, the matrix of the problem, to be declared void. The United States membership in that organization will then cease to be obligatory; thus, the United States would no longer be a member of the United Nations.
This principle is known as Rebus Sic Stantibus* which is recognized as the highest reason in rank for a country to void a treaty, and it means that:
“the situation has changed!”
Rebus Sic Stantibus means that “there was more to the treaty than what met the eye”…..more than the states and the citizens were aware of at the time of its ratification! This is the case with the United Nations Charter which was enacted as a “treaty”! Unfairly and unjustly sold as a “program for peace,” the U.N. Charter was actually engineered to overthrow the American system of government and restructure the United States as a part of a global government. The series of purported treaties that followed are being passed as “laws” and are not at all what the general public has been led to believe that they are supposed to contain.
“An unconstitutional act is not law….as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” — Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442
Another route the states may choose to force the repeal of a treaty is by using the decision of the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that it takes only one state to force the Supreme Court to rule on an issue. If the ruling comes out unfavorable, the recourse for the state(s) is to override the Supreme Court and undertake a repeal action themselves. Such an action takes thirty-eight (38) states to successfully override the Supreme Court. Repealing “enabling legislation” alone (negating previous national action) does not complete the necessary procedure to rescind a treaty! Additionally, a repeal, rescinding, and revoking action should be effected against an aberrant previously passed treaty in order to negate previous international action. It is a well known fact that one of the checks in the Check and Balance System places the responsibility upon the states to keep the federal government from exceeding the limits of power they delegated to it. Chances are that your state governor or representatives are not versed in international law and do not realize that Rebus Sic Stantibus is a recognized principle of international law which exists between nations and that it allows for the revocation of disastrous treaties that destroy the structure, sovereignty, and liberty of a nation.
Rebus Sic Stantibus is the premier principle of international law and is held as the highest reason in rank for voiding a treaty!
The facts regarding the objectives of the United Nations were not known by the general population at the time the U.N. Charter was enacted. Transferring U.S. armed forces to permanent control of communist commanders, allowing the avowed enemies of our country to supervise the closing of our defense plants and military bases, and to prohibit law-abiding Americans from owning firearms is in violation of the United States Constitution! These U.N. objectives do not meet the criteria to qualify the U.N. Charter as a treaty! Also, little known is the fact that a treaty is enforceable upon every individual!
The people have been lied to about the “peace” program and the “safer world”! They were not told of the inverse purposes of the United Nations! Now the truth is being laid bare before the peop1e! The situation has changed! The U. N. was plastered onto the U. S. by using laudable goals as a way of bringing in the U.N.’s hidden objectives! Plenty of grounds exist for putting pressure on representatives to void the U.N. Charter and related world government treaties.
A Word of Warning Regarding the Use of Rebus Sic Stantibus. There is a possibility, because of the deviousness of the courts, that the courts may insist that Rebus Sic Stantibus is a nullification procedure, the type of which they threw out when the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were defensively tried in more recent times. The courts need to understand that it is not the courts who have the “final say” on protection of the nation’s sovereignty! In a united action the states have superiority over all three branches of the federal system!
* Source: Blacks Law Dictionary — At this point of affairs; in these circumstances. A name given to a tacit condition, said to attach to all treaties, that they shall cease to be obligatory so soon as the state of facts and conditions upon which they were founded has substantially changed.
People need to understand the Constitution is law upon the federal, state, and local governments and, in that fashion, protects the rights of the people from interference by government. Any official that ignores this fact commits treason and must be considered incompetent to hold office. Sadly, this means 100 percent of current officials and their enforcers should be replaced with true Americans that know that freedom means NOT UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL, and the right to do as they wish providing they do not intentionally interfere with the rights of another. This brings up the fact that if any act by government interferes with the rights of even one man or woman or child that is a citizen of one of the many states, and hence a Citizen of the United States of America, it is null and void from its inception and it is the duty of the people forming the many states to ignore it. Any act preventing this is an act of domestic terrorism by definition.
With all the uproar over these *treaties* and agreements I am so glad that Cynthia saved this information for us.
Note the sentence in the article below, paraphrasing the Supreme Court Opinion on treaties:
Understand what the Supreme Court said. No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT.
In addition, no Trans Pacific Partnership, Agenda 21 or Agenda 2030 can supersede the Constitution either.
Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution
The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”.
The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”.
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by
a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the
State deems the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of
self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve
read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by
when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supersede the
Help to dispel this myth.
“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy
of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that, “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions.
(See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”
Understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,
“The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”
Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.
The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT!!! CASE CLOSED.
Now we must let our elected “representatives” in Washington and the State legislatures know that we no longer believe the BIG LIE… we know that we are not bound by unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other such treasonous acts.
[Note: the above information was taken from Aid & Abet Police Newsletter, with limited revision. P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Arizona. Acknowledgment given to Claire Kelly, for her good assistance and in depth treaty research. The use of this information is not to be construed as endorsement of Aid & Abet Police Newsletter. Claire Kelly is a trusted and knowledgeable researcher. –
Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:
“Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others”.
pg 317 – “The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972.
Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573
“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
Excerpt from a letter from U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, (R. Penn.) to constituent, November 3, 1994.
“Dear Mr. Neely:
“Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. … I have signed on as a cosponsor of Senator Bradley’s resolution [SR 70, which urges the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate for ratification] because I believe that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is an appropriate step in the direction of promoting the well-being of children throughout the world. [he goes on to mention concerns that the treaty would subjugate familial and parental responsibility to an international entity, which he denies] “… Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country… ”
[CDR Note: It is our belief that Arlen Specter would not have been as truthful regarding Constitutional Supremacy over treaties if he had a clue that this letter to a constituent would have found its way into the hands or eyes of the public.]
No law or treaty supersedes the Supreme Law of the Land. ‘Supreme’… meaning ‘highest or greatest’. What is higher than highest or greater than greatest, other than our Creator? The Constitution acknowledges our God-given, unalienable rights, and secures those rights in that acknowledgment.
The Constitution gives the US Senate authority to ratify treaties with other nations. Americans have been propagandized into believing that those treaties become the supreme law of the land superseding the Constitution. Let’s examine this deception closely and dispel the myth once and for all.
Article VI of the Constitution states:
Clause 2 – “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 [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Clause 3 – “The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution .”
Laws made in pursuance of this Constitution are laws which are made within the strict and limited confines of the Constitution itself. No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and no state constitution can supersede, or be repugnant to, this Constitution.
Treaties made under the authority of the United States… the United States (federal government) was authorized by and on behalf of the people and in pursuance of this Constitution to enter into certain treaties with other governments. The United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous to think that it has the power to circumvent (via treaties) that which grants it its authority.
In Clause 3, it is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support this Constitution. Who can rightly, and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which they are elected and sworn to uphold?
The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, preempt or eradicate it.
The U.S. Supreme Court as cited above correctly ruled that the supremacy of the Constitution overrides treaties. It should be noted that if any Court, be it a State, Federal or the U.S. Supreme Court, should ever rule otherwise, the decision would be repugnant to the Constitution and the ruling would be null and void. The answer to this question is self-evident.
The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations, the word “nation” although not explicit, is certainly implied.
The United Nations is an Organization – a Global Corporate Bureaucracy. The “experts” in international law, commerce, banking, environment, etc.; and a cadre of alleged conservative / Christian-conservative leaders — lawyer, Dame of Malta, Phyllis Schlafly being a prime example — have been spewing forth propaganda to instill and further the myth of “treaty-supremacy” for decades.
Their “expertise” is an illusion created apparently with hopes to instill a sense of inferiority in the “common man” (their term) so we will all defer to their superior intelligence. Let’s not go there.
Here’s a perfect example of “expert” propaganda on the supremacy question: On April 11, 1952, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (CFR), speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky said…
“Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land…. Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, …can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”
Mr. Dulles is confused about the People’s rights.
To repeat an earlier statement of fact: the Constitution doesn’t “give” us rights. The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away.
The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit — propaganda. Admittedly by propaganda.
“There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it.
In other words, time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible… This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country…”
Allen W. Dulles (CFR) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.
The question of “nationhood” in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress. A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture?