Sunday, October 25, 2009

USA Sovereignty: It's Been At Risk Since 1789

Last week I highlighted a segment of Lord Christopher Monckton's speech wherein he warned us of the threat to our sovereignty. Then I gave you a glimpse into how dismaying was his comment.

Since then Mark Vande Pol has put together a thorough review of how much treaty law affects our nation's constitution, and the federal power over the states and over our personal rights, the Bill of Rights notwithstanding.

In Patrick Henry, “Ratified”: The Treaty Power, Its Perils and Portents, Mr. Vande Pol (a recognized land restoration expert and author) provides us with several troubling observations and conclusions. One quite startling is:
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.
He provides the records of the founding fathers during struggles to ratify our US Constitution so as to contrast for us the arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. It was clear that the anti-federalists spotted the dangers inherent in the proposed constitution from the very start. Still, the Federalists poo-poohed those concerns, but not very convincingly, as shown. However, the forces clamoring to fix the then current financial crisis were so great that the majority of states representatives were willing to at least temporarily give power to foreign governments over how we governed ourselves as a form of guarantee for the loans they would then provide us (viz.: treaty law as the justification to pass federal taxes so as to repay national debt.)

Somehow, in all the years since 1789, the USA has never ratified an Amendment to our Constitution that would rescind that power of treaties. Not even after WW II when we were providing loans to the world through the Marshall Plan did we seek to amend that clause in our Constitution.

Mr. Vande Pol argues for and demonstrates what such an amendment would look like:
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;
Treaties operate at the Constitutional level. The same standard should apply to treaties as to amending the Constitution itself.
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.
He even provides us with this stunning observation:
"Now you know why George Bush’s 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 Kyoto."
I bet most of you are surprised to learn that. Mr Vande Pol shows it to be a consequence of another treaty ratified by the Senate in 1969 that allows the spirit of any international agreement signed by one of our Presidents to be followed even when our Senate fails to ratify the treaty.

This, my review of Mr Vande Pol's important work, is only a sketch. Please go and read the whole thing.

It will serve you and our nation to learn and understand how urgent it is that we prevail upon Mr. Obama not to sign the Copenhagen agreement. Copenhagen's provisions will be onerous far beyond what most all Americans have been informed.

We were woefully ill informed, that is, until today.

Thank you Mr Vande Pol.


  1. Please Pasc, lets progress. Let's not live in the past.

  2. Og: Your assessment of trollish vanity continues being accurate. Here I've presented a post filled with provocative views that a Leftist with any intelligence should have no difficulty countering with specific arguments, and instead we get a broad question that has nothing to do with the threat posed.

    It's a solipsist that thinks we're figments of its imagination?

  3. "It's a solipsist that thinks we're figments of its imagination?"
    Solipsist, versus reality? Why do cons hate reality so much.

  4. Pasc, Radiohead, Rainbow, what dont you get?

  5. Pascal,

    Tis a lost cause my friend. You know the drill, "There is none so blind as he who will not see ..."

    Even I fell pray to misinterpreting the Constitution, in this regard. Had thought you needed 2/3's of the (whole) Senate for ratification, when in reality, it was only 2/3'rds of those present at the time of the vote. Boy, does that set us up for some rapid tearing down of the original framework of this country.

    There is still (granted, it is minimal) some hope that future leaders in any of the three branches will provide some solution to the devastation produced by the current Confederacy of Dunces. But I wonder if there will be a nation to defend at that time?

  6. Guy,

    It was another Vande Pol essay that was my first alert to that "two thirds present" stipulation.

    Alexander Hamilton was identified as the provision's primary defender. He had been instrumental in arranging the loans and needed the power thus provided. Foreign lenders knew that our central government's power to tax under the Articles of Confederation was nonexistent. Loans between nations, as with other agreements, are documented through treaty. So this strange wording in our new constitution was the remedy for guaranteeing our loans. Oddly enough, it appears to be that we may be the only nation with such a provision in its constitution, probably because it was seen early on that under the auspices of our federal republic there was no easy way to compel the states to accept taxation. A needy executive, in time of emergency, can call an emergency session of the senate and gather the senators (wink, wink) he needs to get ratification.

    This was made even worse in 1969, as Mr Vande Pol shows, when the senate ratified an agreement to accept all future presidential signatures as binding on our actions until such time that the senate ratifies the treaty signed. This is how the environmental groups could sue agencies like the EPA or the Interior Department to issue regulations that followed the Kyoto or Diverse Species Act -- and WIN in US courts -- EVEN THOUGH the Senate had voted against those treaties.

  7. once again, it fails the turing test. Wierd.

  8. Og you incurious dog, Guy is perfectly fine in his statements and you dear sir are the "it".

  9. Og, I finally looked up the Turing test, and you fit the the bill for failing it, as all you do is repeat the same things (ie; failing the Turing test). Are you in a recursive loop meltdown? Do you even understand recursion? Your programmer should stay away from it, if he doesn't understand it. Maybe you could tell him?


View My Stats