Skip to comments.Patrick Henry "Ratified": The Treaty Power, It's Perils and Portents
Posted on 10/26/2009 7:45:44 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
In light of Lord Moncktons recent dire warning about how a new treaty on carbon emissions is actually meant to institute a global bureaucratic authority, I thought it would be useful to point out the particulars and provide the background showing that, if anything, he has understated his case. It may take years before it becomes evident, but this IS about global government, with your rights and property signed away to a remote and unaccountable undemocratic bureaucracy at the flick of Barack Obamas pen, the moment he signs said document.
Sign did I say? Dont treaties have to be ratified before they are enforced?
No, the moment our Presidential poseur whips out his pen, youre hosed, but why it works that way and whether or not this is really true rightly requires a bit of supporting evidence. So, here we go
To most Americans, treaties are an obscure branch of law, affecting only those who deal in things international corporations, diplomats, military people, etc. Just about everyone has heard of the UN Charter or Geneva Convention, or any number of peace treaties thinking thats about the end of it. Unfortunately, this belief is totally disconnected from reality. So, my first job is to explain to you why you should pay attention to this lengthy article full of abstruse quotes from the founding fathers.
My guess is most readers dont believe any of that. Mind you, I am not saying that any of these attributes is legitimate, but that this is how things effectively work. What we witnessing is the development of an elitist government, effectively a form of feudal fascism equivalent to the 18th Century mercantilism against which the founders rebelled in the first place.
In 1787, when the Federal Convention was called and the Constitution written, celebrated champions of liberty such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams refused to attend. When questioned upon the reason for his decision, Mr. Henry spat out his famed opinion of the Convention process:
I smell a rat.
Youve got to like Patrick Henry, if only for his candor.
Little did he know how prescient was his suspicion. Whether Mr. Henry regarded his influence as insufficient to inflect the outcome (and thus his presence to be effectively complicit in a travesty (my conclusion)), or whether he believed his powers of persuasion in Virginia to be sufficient to derail the effort at a later date is not material. The more important lesson is that for these anti-Federalists (a-F) to remove themselves from the battle was a great misjudgment, reflecting the foibles and weakness of faith so common to us all.
We can no longer afford such a luxury.
The Constitutional Convention itself had been conducted in secret, which should have been enough to arouse near insurrection. But things were bad back then and most people were occupied with mere survival. The United States after the Revolutionary War was broke. The Continental Congress had no power to tax. European lenders were very reluctant to part with any gold when the States were wildly printing currencies of various sorts. Besides, there was no United States government to guarantee payment. Nor was there a national government to organize and fund the defense infrastructure to repel an invasion to re-conquer the fledgling nation. It was bad. So it wasnt as if there was no justification for the Constitution, far from it. The problem with secrecy is that it is far too easy to slip in a few provisions that bite you later. Best that, if the nation has to do a bad deal to survive, it knows what to change at a later date when the debt is paid.
Upon conclusion of that famous Convention which produced that revered document whose obvious strengths stand simultaneously both celebrated and ignored today, Mr. Henry and his fellow anti-Federalists made their last stand against it, their speeches collected in a remote set of records whose faint echo today should now ring in our ears, the speeches of the Virginia Ratifying Convention.
HENRY (a-F): I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. Thursday, Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788
Note: Quotes from the Virginia Ratifying Convention are as the clerk recorded them, not as they were spoken. There are consequent changes in voice, grammar, and perspective that can be confusing. Such is simply how things were done at that time."
Sounds a might hyperbolic, doesnt it? Well, it might seem so today to a nation vastly overshadowing its national progenitor in physical power, but considering our financial debts and those to whom it is owed, best we reconsider the perils at our door that arose from this very point of contention. For it is the treaty power which is so easily diverted, seemingly upon a whim and without regard to the wishes of its citizens, that so easily demonstrates the truth of Mr. Henrys contentions.
The paradox at issue, both then and now, is very simple: Can a government with limited powers agree to terms whose execution requires exceeding those powers?
In principle, no. In practice, its done all the time all over the world.
In response to Henrys objections, the Federalists said No:
Gov. RANDOLPH (F) Mr. Chairman, I conceive that neither the life nor property of any citizen, nor the particular right of any state, can be affected by a treaty (please mark that limit against what he says later). The lives and properties of European subjects are not affected by treaties, which are binding on the aggregate community in its political, social capacity.
The honorable gentleman says that, if you place treaties on the same footing here as they are in England, he will consent to the power, because the king is restrained in making treaties. Will not the President and Senate be restrained? Being creatures of that Constitution, can they destroy it? Can any particular body, instituted for a particular purpose, destroy the existence of the society for whose benefit it is created?
Of course, those were merely rhetorical questions because, at that time, no one among the political class could possibly get away with claiming that an American official could ever be so treacherous (at least not without facing a pistol at twenty paces). Considering the economic chaos at the time and the possible threat of European re-conquest, most folks gave the Federalists the benefit of the doubt, if only for relief from the apparent flaws of the Articles of Confederation. It was a crisis!
After all, these Federalists were great men of good family. This was The Enlightenment, a time in which men of stature believed that human aspiration to greatness derived from morality, altruism, nobility, the good works of men, and an impressive estate. Their evident distaste for plebian Christian principles, so long and terribly violated by leaders of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, had released them from the restraint of humility, seeking ambition in their demonstrably good works.
Good according to whom? Doesnt such thinking lead one to conclude that ends justify means? After all, noblesse oblige all too often entails droit de seigneur in the "bargain," but who would be so cheeky as to protest any supposed act of altruism by a wealthy and powerful elite?
This question cuts to the very core of Henrys fears, for there was NO penalty to be exerted upon officers of the government who ignored Constitutional limits in pursuit of those noble goals:
HENRY: This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.
For what? Why would any Constitutional officer so wildly exceed his legitimate powers as to conclude a permanent and binding agreement with a foreign government that would violate the rights of citizens? How would they even think that they could get away with it? To accuse anyone of the American nobility of such base desires was simply horrifying! The Federalists wasted no time demonizing Mr. Henry for even voicing the prospect.
JAMES MADISON (F): thought it astonishing that gentlemen should think that a treaty could be got up with surprise, or that foreign nations should be solicitous to get a treaty only ratified by the senators of a few states. Were the President to commit any thing so atrocious as to summon only a few states, he would be impeached and convicted, as a majority of the states would be affected by his misdemeanor.
As I document elsewhere on this site, using treaty law to enact such usurpations of power for supposedly noble purposes (that just so happened to benefit the noble quite considerably) have been done before, many times. Treaties have been ratified in the Senate without record of a quorum, no record of a committee vote, no recorded vote. One such treaty, (the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere) committed every inch of the United States and its entire economy to stopping natural selection dead in its tracks. There was to be no limit to the commitment to save even the most insignificant variety of plant or animal, no matter how much money or land it took. Now, as to whether or not you agree with that goal, it is obvious that such power wildly exceeds Constitutional limits AND that the process in no way consulted the will of the people. Nor was this some recent creation, this treaty was ratified in 1941. Similarly, packages of as many as 34 treaties have been ratified by merely by voice vote.
Its not as if we nobody else besides Mr. Henry had noticed:
GRAYSON (a-F) in a hypothetical example of the possibility of the government ceding control of the Missippi to Spain If the senators of the Southern States be gone but one hour, a treaty may be made by the rest, yielding that inestimable right. This paper [the Constitution -ed] will be called the law of nations in America; it will be the Great Charter of America; it will be paramount to every thing. After having once consented to it, we cannot recede from it. Such is my repugnance to the alienation of a right which I esteem so important to the happiness of my country, that I would object to this Constitution if it contained no other defect. Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788
Pursuant to the Convention on Nature Protection and others like it, private property rights have been routinely trashed by green groups and complicit Federal bureaucracies using trumped up claims of the need for environmental protection. In every case, they cite statutes that cite treaties for their authority to execute powers to execute the regulatory taking. Now, it is one thing to pay somebody what its worth to assure the continuation of a species or buy their land at full market value to save it for the benefit the public as a whole, but it is quite another to pay pennies on the dollar for the property when the market value is gone because of the mere threat or legal cost of resisting a regulatory taking (sadly, it would be cheaper to pay for the service than for the legal battle). Even worse is to exert massive fines until the owner is bankrupt with the arresting officer, judge, and legislator all belonging to the same agency. But even WORSE is when the supposed environmental benefits of the taking fail to materialize or backfire completely, especially when their real purpose had NOTHING to do with benefiting productive wildlife habitat but instead was all about using the law to manipulate markets and make money. It happens all the time; it was the subject of my first book,Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature
The "administration" of virtually every major environmental law on the books routinely violates the principles of separation of powers, enumerated powers, equal protection, taking without compensation, unlawful search and seizure, protection against self incrimination, due process, and the assumption of innocence
Such costs have driven our industry offshore, closed our mines and farms, and converted thousands of square miles of former savannah into a virtual desert (which I document photographically in several National Parks on my new CD, Shemitta: For the Land Is Mine).
Virtually every major Federal environmental law cites treaty law as its source of authority, simply because extending Federal police power within the States exceeds the enumerated powers the Federal government was granted in the Constitution.
Treaties matter, and just because such treatment hasnt reached you yet doesnt mean that it cannot. Environmental law has become a crooked racket, wildly inflating the cost of everything you buy, and Im not taking just a minor bit of pain. Just one case cost the people of California the equivalent of a free college education for every eligible child in the State, or a down payment on a home (see article on this site, Energy Racketeering: The Natural Resources Defense Council).
HENRY: The power of making treaties, by this Constitution, ill-guarded as it is, extended farther than it did in any country in the world. Treaties were to have more force here than in any part of Christendom; for he defied any gentleman to show any thing so extensive in any strong, energetic government in Europe. Treaties rest, says he, on the laws and usages of nations. To say that they are municipal is, to me, a doctrine totally novel. To make them paramount to the Constitution and laws of the states, is unprecedented. I would give them the same force and obligation they have in Great Britain, or any other country in Europe. Gentlemen are going on in a fatal career; but I hope they will stop before they concede this power unguarded and unaltered
GOVERNOR RANDOLPH: Can any particular body, instituted for a particular purpose, destroy the existence of the society for whose benefit it is created? It is said there is no limitation of treaties. I defy the wisdom of that gentleman to show how they ought to be limited Wednesday, June 18, 1788, First speech: Treaty power
Scary, isnt he?
HENRY: I say again that, if you consent to this power, you depend on the justice and equity of those in power. We may be told that we shall find ample refuge in the law of nations. When you yourselves have your necks so low that the President may dispose of your rights as he pleases, the law of nations cannot be applied to relieve you. Sure I am, if treaties are made infringing our liberties, it will be too late to say that our constitutional rights are violated.
"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt. Saturday, June 14, 1788, First speech: Restraint on corruption
I have toyed with the idea of fixing the supremacy clause in Article VI. We need a Constitutional Amendment that declares any treaty or legislation pursuant to a treaty relying upon powers for its execution exceeding those specifically enumerated in the Constitution void, but I have not yet settled upon the language. I dont like the ambiguity in the existing construction one bit:
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.
So, is it under the Authority of the United States that all treaties made, or which shall be made shall be the supreme Law of the Land? Or is it effectively treaties made under the Authority of the United States as proscribed by constitutionally enumerated powers??? Most people read it to be the latter and it is equally clear that the Federalists argued as much, but we know which one the lawyers have apparently used.
Whether to limit the treaty power in Article VI is one thing, but there should be NO disagreement about Amending Article II, Section 2, Clause2 of the Constitution as follows:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present three quarters of the legislatures of the Several States concur;
Why State legislatures instead of the Senate? They dont deal in foreign policy?
Treaties operate at the Constitutional level. The same standard should apply to treaties as to amending the Constitution itself. This is particularly true since the 17th Amendment changed the appointment of Senators by State legislatures to popular election. So this change at least goes a short way toward restoring some of the benefits of federalism without the bulk of its historic complications.
It is a very simple amendment that should brook no argument, so fire any representative who resists. It is that important.
As to whether mere State legislators would understand a prospective treaty, the proponents would have to explain them, in detail sufficient to make a compelling case, wouldnt they? It would take a while to do that in three-quarters of the legislatures, during which time any hidden agenda would easily come to light. One wonders if that is why the Federalists initiated in the expedited treaty ratification process (for more on the way Hamilton et al. foisted this process read the article, Treaty Law: The Constitutions original Trojan Horse on this site). In defense of that process, and in opposition to involving the House of Representatives in treaty ratification, Hamilton wrote this in Federalist 75 (anonymously):
Accurate and comprehensive knowledge of foreign politics; a steady and systematic adherence to the same views; a nice and uniform sensibility to national character; decision, secrecy [emphasis in the original!!! -ED], and despatch [sic], are incompatible with the genius of a body so variable and so numerous.[snip]
The very complication of the business [snip] would be a source of so great inconvenience and expense as alone ought to condemn the project.
One would think amending the Supreme Law of the Land SHOULD be inconvenient and definitely SHOULD NOT be conducted in secrecy. Article VI should have been amended long before the Civil War. Speaking of which
After the Civil War and just like the first one, the Republic was broke. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given full citizenship to freed slaves. Yet somehow, Congress felt it necessary to institute the citizenship and equal protection clauses in the 14th Amendment. Why?
The answer is in the citizenship clause itself, or should I say, NOT in the citizenship clause:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
At the time, the principal financial interest represented in the post-war Republican Congress were the railroads. Two railroad lawyers then in Congress, Roscoe Conkling and John A. Bingham, had taken the trouble to omit the word natural from the usual legal term natural persons. Both of them later admitted that their purpose in the omission was to confer the rights of citizenship to corporations (for more on that story, see the article on this web site: Kelo & the 14th Amendment:Exploring a Constitutional Koan).
This change plus the privileges and immunities clause unified laws between States regulating corporations to a far greater degree. It also made the Congress a one-stop shop for selling favors. Upon this change, the great industrial robber baronies were built, where instead they might have been more numerous (and competitive) smaller entities. These folks amassed so much wealth, that the rest of the country, many of whom were recent immigrants ignorant of Constitutional principle, fell prey to envy and instituted the income tax. The rich immediately exempted themselves by putting their wealth under the guise of charity.
It is these very tax-exempt foundations who supply the bulk of the seed money to environmental groups that sue complicit federal agencies. It is these same non-governmental organizations (NGOs) consisting principally of lawyers who sit in on the various United Nations conferences today, drafting treaty law in secret. Again, there is an excellent series of examples on how the system rigs the system subsequent to these treaties in Energy Racketeering: The Natural Resources Defense Council
Using a tax-exempt foundation under the guise of charity, to twist the laws forcing people to use your product, induce artificial scarcity to raise prices, to use regulatory power to force competitors out of the market, or to protect you from liability for your product, all in order to reap a guaranteed profit is tax fraud, racketeering, malicious mischief, and theft on a grand scale.
To fund a process that systematically dismantles constitutional protections for the unalienable rights of the people and to construct in its place an extra-national government to exercise powers exceeding those proscribed by the Constitution and capable of violating those rights, for whatever reason whether profit or pretended altruism, is worse than mere crime, it is treason. It is a process that absolutely depends upon the very expensive propagation and maintenance of a fraud upon the people in the name of protecting the environment. I say this as one committed to the arduous process of native plant habitat restoration at an unprecedented level for nearly twenty years. I gave up a successful engineering career to mitigate the environmental damage largely perpetrated by wealthy socialists. I don't just complain, I seek to create viable alternatives.
So, to recap,
So, what about that last item? Nobody says anything about it. Really, binding upon signature? Who would ratify that?
The United State Senate ratified the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (pdf file), in 1969. Essentially, this is a treaty about treaties, and boy is it ever a winner. Read it and weep:
Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.
So far, no problem. The USA has never agreed to such a means... has it?
Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature
1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when:
(a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
(b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that effect; or
Just who would make that determination and how, it just doesnt say. And if that wasnt enough:
(c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
You mean, the negotiators could get drunk, be paid off, have a bad day, or suffer a lapse in speech and whatever they agreed to would be the Supreme Law of the Land? Effectively, even if the document does not state that it is binding upon signature, one can always produce witnesses from the UN to will claim that the negotiators had "consented" to it.
2.For the purposes of paragraph 1:
(a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed;
(b) the signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty.
How does it feel to know such weasel words have been the Supreme Law of the Land for forty years and yet not one President, Republican or Democrat, has breathed a word about this beast? How then could it be truly "binding"; this must be some sort of hyperbole.
By binding the UN means that the signatory government agrees not to do anything in conflict with the goals and spirit of the treaty pending ratification. Is there an enforcement process, no, but such is in the works via mechanisms such as the World Trade Organization and the Bank for International Settlements.
Now you know why George Bushs administration was instituting programs to cut greenhouse gas emissions despite the fact that the Senate had rejected the Kyoto Protocols 98-0, Clinton had signed it. Now you know why we see subspecies (simple variants on a species similar to differences in hair color in people) listed as endangered despite the fact that the Senate rejected the Global Biodiversity Treaty. Clinton had signed it. I dont want to tell you what youll see from schools and Child Protective Services should the Rights of the Child Treaty be fully incorporated, but its most elegant feature is that children have the right to grow up in a gun free community which of course means that only criminals and police will have them.
Charming, isnt it?
As to the Copenhagen Treaty, I must apologize, I have scanned it, but have not studied it yet in detail, for which there is very good reason. The problem with reading this beast is that what Lord Monckton is warning us about is not the final treaty.
The final article will likely be much worse.
This COP-15 document consists of a vast array of bracketed options to be decided upon by the parties You have no idea what an appropriate term parties is: When the thousands of delegates, mostly from developing and third whirled countries, show up in Copenhagen, they will be ensconced in fancy hotels, and showered with days of wining and dining, with a per-diem sufficient to supply the likely influx of hookers. These minor officials will gather in large rooms with UN staff scurrying back and forth telling them how to coordinate with what has been decided in another room pursuant to closed door meetings with no-one but the UN-paid staff present. Hence, NOBODY KNOWS what the final article is going to be other than the staff, but no matter what, the final product will be declared a consensus
Yup, its secret and is it ever fast! Fans of Alexander Hamilton should be thrilled.
Barack Obama has every intention of signing such a monster. Of course, neither he nor we will have any idea what our negotiators will have SAID during negotiations
One important feature will be a global planning authority under the aegis of an obscure international network of bureaucrats. This is the regulatory pipeline of UN Global Governance pursuant to the Global Agenda 21, an oppressively comprehensive regulatory plan for the entire planet that just somehow takes care of the industrialists whose pet NGOs. The process works something like this:
If the policy goal exceeds Constitutional authority, the foundations pet NGOs design specific provisions to be incorporated into a treaty (such as cap and trade fees penalizing production of carbon dioxide). Many of these folks also work (upon occasion) at Federal agencies or at the UN equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency, the (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). Some are appointed onto the US delegation to negotiate the specific treaty provisions. Upon signature, they either come back to the US bureaucracy, sit on the appropriate UN conference of the parties (the committee that writes the treaty and (after completion) forms a permanent panel that interprets it over time), or they go back to the NGO to sue their former employer forcing the government to institute rules or legislation by which to comply with the treaty. Its a hall of mirrors with revolving doors going at full tilt, people scurrying back and forth...
Congress or the agencies then offer the lure of Federal funds to induce cash-strapped local governments to comply. If they dont, the same heavily financed NGOs can threaten suit. Few local governments have that kind of money to spend so they cave. Then the local planners, many networked with ICLEI (the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives) or ICLEI-USA enthusiastically crank out the specifications for how your community will be run such that you will reduce your carbon footprint. Believe me, they have read all the industry magazines full of good ideas as to exactly how you should do that (nearly all involving large amounts of energy upon which you will be taxed). Essentially, the system does everything possible to force you into Sustainable Development, an overpriced urban apartment complex sitting on land heisted from its owners by a redevelopment agency using eminent domain and handed to a developer at below market value. You can be easily controlled in such a community with little chance of escape.
The energy taxes will be hidden in everything you buy, so you will not see how much they really are. Every new product will face bureaucratic hoops to ascertain its impact. You will need to offset that impact with a Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA, see the text of the proposed treaty for a description), which effectively means youll need to find an agent selling carbon dispensations. Whether or not they actually benefit anything is immaterial and I have seen some amazingly contorted logic justifying these mitigations.
These treaties are worded in such a way that it is easy to change effectively what they mean as the situation demands. They contain provisions setting up administrative bodies within the UN that determine the particulars of how they are to be enforced. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE IS ELECTED. They are often selected from the same NGOs that drafted the original document. Effectively, activism is thus rewarded with a lifetime career of writing Byzantine rules and regulations that please their original sponsors.
The process automatically forces production into the hands of those possessing means to manage the paperwork. Change the product and youll just have to reapply. Dont worry about the backlog among all these paper-pushers; it will be the same for everybody, uh, wont it? Although it would be really easy to tie up that hot new product with questions making it impossible to get into production, I just cant imagine how anyone might influence a nameless bureaucrat in a foreign country working for a totally unaccountable agency with unlimited powers, do you?
So, the Copenhagen Treaty (along with many others) will effectively place the United States of America under a vast and inherently corrupt foreign government no matter what the final document says. The NGOs can change the meaning of it as they go anyway.
Still, if you are determined to read it, the current Copenhagen COP-15 document (all 180 pages of it) can be found here:
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON LONG-TERM COOPERATIVE ACTION UNDER THE CONVENTION, Seventh session, Bangkok, 28 September to 9 October 2009, and Barcelona, 26 November 2009, FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 15 September 2009, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf.
If Barack Obama goes to Copenhagen, and pulls out his pen to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, he will have violated his oath of office, usurping powers beyond those enumerated and allotted to him under the Constitution on behalf of a foreign government.
There is a name for that crime and it carries a heavy penalty.
HENRY: In the country from which we are descended [Great Britain], they have real and not imaginary responsibility; for their mal-administration has cost their heads to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever were [Henry might have been thinking of Charles I]. The Senate, by making treaties, may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties that shall be the supreme law of the land; they may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them. Whoever shows me a punishment provided for them will oblige me.
Yes folks, Im with Patrick Henry. What this country needs is a few thousand orange jumpsuits, custom fitted for politicians, NGO lawyers, State Department bureaucrats…. That treaties are populated with regulations via court rulings means we might well need another batch order for Federal judges too, for when a citizen of this country takes an oath of office, to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution, willful abuse of power, however seemingly reasonable or justified, should bring meaningful consequences; else that privilege will gravitate to those who would hold their oath meaningless.
To some small degree, culpability for this travesty can be laid at Henrys feet for having chosen not to fight even a losing battle when he clearly knew what was at stake. Maybe, after risking his neck in the Revolutionary War and witnessing all the death and destruction, he was simply tired and disillusioned. Maybe he finally recognized that this was a far larger battle than simply throwing off the British crown. Still, would you want that acquiescence on your conscience?
Best we take that lesson to heart and start taking those baby steps toward making things more difficult for would be tyrants. In faith and with His help, maybe we can kill that rat once and for all.
10/26/09 - My thanks to Pascal for catching so many typos. It gets a bit tricky finding them on the note pad and this piece came together very quickly while in the exhausting process of releasing Shemitta.
Thanks, I needed the help.
Mark Edward Vande Pol is the author of Natural Process - That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature. This book demonstrates why regulatory environmental control is fundamentally flawed and proposes a free-market alternative together with examples and implementing strategy. You can learn more about this book at http://www.naturalprocess.net.
Mr. Vande Pol's new book is about an amazing discovery on the Biblical Sabbath for the Land: Shemitta: For the Land Is Mine. The original system, never practiced or articulated, was an amazing and comprehensive plan for national defense, environmental health, and empowerment of the poor, presaging a pattern that spans the entire Biblical history, from Abraham to Revelation. You can learn more about it at www.shemitta.com.
Enjoy! (sort of)
Thanks! So the upshot is that we’re screwed, right?
I wouldn't put it that way. We certainly have been screwed. That does not mean we cannot institute a counter strategy. Read the article; it references just such a plan.
Thank you for sharing this. It IS pretty scary, but we have to know about it.
Your writing is superb, as usual.
I know, I was kidding. We can always plant a new tree of liberty, can’t we?
I was just reading this yesterday
Obama and Clinton cede to UN small arms treaty
I'm not kidding at all when I refer to a counter-strategy. It's amazing.
Ping for historical procrastination.
The treaties are coming home to RULE the roost.
I don't see why not. The seeds are in shorter supply these days, but still can be purchased at your local sporting goods store.
“IS about global government”
... which would almost certainly be a bad thing, whatever flag it was under. But let’s make clear that the threat is LEFTIST global government. Not some global government of administration, but a simple Power Grab.
Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Hitler - these all wanted “world government” - which is just Power Grab.
That does need spelling out. The idea that our grand overlords are “beneficient & kind administrators” has been pushed hard.
Interesting! Good to see you writing again.
About treaties...the congress can and HAS reversed treaties. They are NOT the last word. In 1866, they made a treaty with the Cherokee Nation, holding they would not be taxed on tobacco.
[snip] The Boudinot Tabacco Factory was located just inside Indian Territory near Siloam Springs, Arkansas and proved popular and lucrative to local businesses. Noticing the success of the enterprise and the temptation of revenue and reprisal, the government acted upon a law they had just imposed for a federal excise tax on tobacco and distilled spirits which did not exempt Indian Territory.
Watie refused to pay what he considered an illegitimate tax against a sovereign state and in violation of the treaty made only a year before which held Cherokee or other tribes were not subject such tax. Boudinot, having been involved in writing the language of the treaty, knew the congress and the government had acted outside the agreement.
Nevertheless, federal officers confiscated and closed the factory, seized the assets to pay the back tax and forced Watie into bankruptcy. Boudinot filed suit against the government, but typically the case was long delayed. This became a landmark decision, setting precedent that a law passed by Congress could supersede provisions of even a recent treaty.
From Chapter 16 “Jesus Wept” An American Story
Looks like situational supremacy to me. Had the Treasury been borrowing money from the Cherokee so that the Congress could keep spending and the Fed printing money...
“Looks like situational supremacy to me.”
Agreed. But then with ‘government’ these days, what isn’t??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.