Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The Constitution: No Interpreter Necessary

Well, here is a very refreshing piece by a Dr. Caine laying out a solid and understandable explanation about the U.S. Constitution and treaties.  For those of you who might think that certain presidents have not committed some kind of impeachable offense, I maintain that violating one’s oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution is just that, and this article makes clear exactly what kind of violation some in power are committing.

But, again, the problem remains that our federal government has its tentacles deeply wrapped around the education of our children, and as such, most of our kids will never understand the simple laws written into our constitution that prevent such behavior regarding treaties as is performed regularly by some lawmakers.  Which is to say that to do so is illegal.  Of course, since so few are educated well enough to be able to bring charges, the criminal behavior continues.  The inmates are running the asylum.

Without a proper education how is a child supposed to be able to grow up and understand how important little words like “under” are in these documents (at least in this case)?

Well, either way, here’s a little fun with what Dr. Caine has written:

By Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI, paragraph 3 requires all Federal and State officers to also swear:"...to support this [U.S.] Constitution..."

Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."

All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).

A treaty may not do or exceed what the Congress is charged to do or what it is forbidden to do. Constitutional authority supersedes, overrules, and precludes any contrary treaty authority.

No matter how much some may wish it to be, our founding documents do not allow our federal government to go and whore out our sovereignty and resources.  Which is why some have worked so hard to circumvent the constitution to be able to pull off what they have, such as membership in the U.N.  Of course, “circumvention” of the constitution can not legally be achieved.  The way the constitution is written prevents such a thing.  It is illegal.  To do so is to break the law.

Don’t like it?  Get a constitutional convention together and make the change you want via the stipulated process which allows changes to our founding documents.  Other than that, any attempts to “circumvent” the constitution that are clear violations of the law as it is written in the constitution require investigations, impeachment hearings and trials.  So let’s get busy.

"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the [not "this"] Constitution [ of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]"

So, the Judges in each State must obey a bona fide treaty, even if the treaty is contrary to that state’s Constitution or contrary to any law of that state.

Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not "under the Authority of the United States" to make such a treaty.

Ergo, treaties ( "made, or which shall be made" ) that violate the U.S. Constitution by subjugating the United States to an outside power ARE PROHIBITED, of no effect, and thus, null and void.

For a Senator to violate his sworn oath is perjury, a felony, an impeachable offense.

Since treaties are compacts between/among " the powers of the earth" of "separate and equal station" as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations.

Consequently, for at least these two reasons --- 1) because the U.S. Senate in 1945 ratified the United Nations (UN) Charter as a treaty and the UN is not a sovereign nation, and 2) because membership in the UN makes the U.S. inferior to the UN --- U.S. "membership" in the United
Nations is unconstitutional, FORBIDDEN, and thus declared null and void. Ditto for the World Court and the nebulous entanglements of the New World Order.

Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don’t have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)

So many would-be usurpers are condemned by the laws they’re so clearly breaking.  Time for our generation to educate the coming generations so that they can understand that they need to indict for this behavior.  Breaking the law typically has consequences.  And at the highest levels it can have consequences once again if first the people can understand which laws have been broken and why breaking those laws is so much worse than breaking some others.

Because, unlike basic crimes like theft or murder which typically affect a very small and limited number of people, breaking constitutional laws, such as these regarding treaties, can and does directly affect the lives of millions of individual citizens.  And it affects their freedom… our freedom.  And, if I remember correctly, isn’t that what our lawmakers are supposed to be protecting?