Posted by CJLKAS on 11/02/09 3:46 PM [Older: Campaign for Liberty Constitution Class]

RE:  Global Warming Treaty

Amidst all the chatter about the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty, including Adam's recent C4L blog on the same subject, I did a little research to determine if a treaty does indeed become the "Supreme Law of the Land"

Article VI, cl 2 of the Constitution:

"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."

It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word and phrase.  The clause does NOTsay, "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.

Therefore, a Treaty becomes part of the supreme Law of the Land ONLY if it is made "under the Authority of the United States".  That authority comes from where?..........the Constitution.

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, para 10-11) it is the Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, and all judicial decisions is measured (Federalist No. 78, para 9)

For example, in Federalist No. 44, 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.

Also,

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

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
The Supreme Court, in Reid v Covert (1957) has declared that neither a treaty approved by the Senate nor an executive agreement made under the President's authority "can create obligations that violate constitutional guarantees" such as found in the Bill of Rights. [He still does not have enough progressive Supremes to overturn this]

Treaties were clearly meant to be used to undo that for which they do have authority, such as Peace Treaties.

It looks like our unalienable rights enumerated in the 9th and 10th Amendments are still precedent.  Nowhere in the Constitution did the People grant to Congress, the Senate, or the Executive, the authority to control our atmosphere, our weather, or the very air we breathe.  Nor were they granted power to govern over the means of production (energy and/or labor).

I think the bigger problem for Obama is his clear violation of the Constitution (Art 1, Sec 9) which states:

"No Title of  Nobility shall be granted by the United States.  And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or Foreign State."

Obama is the first sitting President to accept the Office of President, United Nations Security Council, which is comprised of many Foreign States.

The United Nations Charter does not hold sovereign Nations to any agreements and/or treaties that would violate their individual Constitutions.

Just some food for thought...........

cj

Posted 11/02/09 7:28 PM moondog 67 2000 Cheboygan, MI

Obama is the first sitting President to accept the Office of {President}, United Nations Security Council, which is comprised of many Foreign States. It was almost right, he excepted the title of {Chair} to the U.N. Security Counsel, with out the act of Congress permitting him to. Or, at the minimum, has not been any Memoriam, Bill or Writ to the contrary in the Federal Register of any kind that states there was an act of Congress for the President to accept. Therefore at this point and time, Obama is not suppose to even hold his office or be known as a citizen of the United Sates of America. He also could be charged with treason, a high crime in the United States, and so convicted on his acceptance of title by the U.N. Unless of course, someone seems to find that elusive acknowledgement of Congress.