By Aaron Cantor USAF (ret)
There is a
lot of out and out misinformation floating around about being bound by
international treaties, most of which is pure sheepdip.
There is a
Constitutional Lawyer who blogs under the name Publiushuldah@gmail.com whom I am in pretty
constant contact with and I am including
some of her papers on the subject here (with her permission).
The Supreme Law Of The Land? Or Lawless Usurpation?
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
Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of
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
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, 9th
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 (7th 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.
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]
To delve further into this, you can use the link at the beginning of this
If after reading this thoroughly you still have questions, then by all
means contact Publiushuldah@gmail.com
Basically what it is saying, is that if it isn’t authorized in the
Constitution, it isn’t considered Under the Authority of The United States ,
and therefore is a usurpation and will not stand.
Are you listening Dick Morris and all the rest of you talking heads that
obviously don’t know up from down.
Don’t just take some idiots word for it do your homework, otherwise you are
being sold a bill of goods and you wind up buying a pig in a poke.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
READER COMMENTS/FEEDBACK PLEASE
PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL ON YOUR LIST