Enumerated Powers in the Constitution
By Aaron Cantor USAF
(ret)
(ret)
There is a lot of out
and out misinformation floating around about being bound by international
treaties and such, most of which is a mixture of pure sheep-dip and codswallop.
and out misinformation floating around about being bound by international
treaties and such, most of which is a mixture of pure sheep-dip and codswallop.
There is a
Constitutional Lawyer who blogs under the name Publiushuldah@gmail.comwhom I am in pretty constant
contact with, and I am including some of
her papers on the subject (with her permission).
Constitutional Lawyer who blogs under the name Publiushuldah@gmail.comwhom I am in pretty constant
contact with, and I am including some of
her papers on the subject (with her permission).
Is it The Supreme Law of the Land? Or Lawless Usurpation?
If for instance, 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?
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.
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:
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 Constitution?
authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the
proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?
Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S.
Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:
Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:
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…
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]
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 making power.
government is authorized to make treaties. Now, we must find out whether
there are limitations on this treaty making power.
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.
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“.
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 para).
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 para).
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:
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. [emphasis added]
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. [emphasis added]
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:
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 already constitutionally exercise. –Thomas
Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]
treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect,
by way of treaty, any powers they might already 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]
the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas
Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]
We have the unalienable right to keep
and bear arms, but the only thing the 2nd Amendment does is tell one
and all that we have that pre-existing right, and that it shall not be
infringed by the States or the Federal Government.
and bear arms, but the only thing the 2nd Amendment does is tell one
and all that we have that pre-existing right, and that it shall not be
infringed by the States or the Federal Government.
The government did not grant us that
right, it is our right because our unalienable rights come from G-d, not
some politician.
right, it is our right because our unalienable rights come from G-d, not
some politician.
You would do well to also note that nowhere
in the constitution or the 2nd Amendment does it specify what type
of firearm you can or cannot own, or for that matter what kind of stock is
legal or illegal, or tell you it looks like an assualt weapon and is therefore
illegal. in other words, some politician or the president has no authority to put restrictions on, or
change by way of executive fiat the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, that
takes a Constitutional convention, and I defy any politician to show me
authorization in any law book that says different.
in the constitution or the 2nd Amendment does it specify what type
of firearm you can or cannot own, or for that matter what kind of stock is
legal or illegal, or tell you it looks like an assualt weapon and is therefore
illegal. in other words, some politician or the president has no authority to put restrictions on, or
change by way of executive fiat the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, that
takes a Constitutional convention, and I defy any politician to show me
authorization in any law book that says different.
I include here further words from
Publius Huldah:
Publius Huldah:
“Obviously,
the Right pre-exists the Constitution. G-d gave us the right to defend
ourselves, hunt for food, protect ourselves from bad people and varmints.
the Right pre-exists the Constitution. G-d gave us the right to defend
ourselves, hunt for food, protect ourselves from bad people and varmints.
Rights come out of the Bible. Not the Constitution, the Declaration, or The
Federalist Papers. I’ll give you one of my favorite examples: the God given
Right to a fair trial:
Federalist Papers. I’ll give you one of my favorite examples: the God given
Right to a fair trial:
The God given Right to a Fair
Trial & How it is secured by Civil Government.
Trial & How it is secured by Civil Government.
1.
Judges are required to be fair, impartial, and without favoritism (Deut
1:16-17).
Judges are required to be fair, impartial, and without favoritism (Deut
1:16-17).
2.
Witnesses must tell the truth – bearing false witness is condemned (The Ten
Commandments).
Witnesses must tell the truth – bearing false witness is condemned (The Ten
Commandments).
3.
The evidence of two or more witnesses is required to prove a case (Deut
19:15& Mat 18:16).
The evidence of two or more witnesses is required to prove a case (Deut
19:15& Mat 18:16).
4.
Public trials are required (Ex 18:13).
Public trials are required (Ex 18:13).
5.
In the Apocrypha, the story of Daniel and Susanna illustrates the practice of
sequestration of witnesses: The witnesses testify outside of the presence of
each other. We do this today!
In the Apocrypha, the story of Daniel and Susanna illustrates the practice of
sequestration of witnesses: The witnesses testify outside of the presence of
each other. We do this today!
This
is by no means an exhaustive list of the Scripture showing we have a G-D given
right to a fair trial. I’m using this for my presentation this Monday evening
in Knoxville – so I only picked out one or two verses for each point.
is by no means an exhaustive list of the Scripture showing we have a G-D given
right to a fair trial. I’m using this for my presentation this Monday evening
in Knoxville – so I only picked out one or two verses for each point.
Our Declaration & Constitution are theological documents – they come right
out of the Bible. Our Framers knew the Bible.
out of the Bible. Our Framers knew the Bible.
I
have the Bible in Hebrew & English in two columns on each page. But it
doesn’t have many of the Old Testament books which appear in the Christian
Bibles. Those “missing” Old Testament Books are glorious and contain
principles on which our Framers based our founding documents.
have the Bible in Hebrew & English in two columns on each page. But it
doesn’t have many of the Old Testament books which appear in the Christian
Bibles. Those “missing” Old Testament Books are glorious and contain
principles on which our Framers based our founding documents.
Look up the right to bear arms in the Bible! The People of Israel were armed;
and Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. But there is
more.
and Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. But there is
more.
Why do you think the Progressives have ripped the Bible out of the public
square? They ripped it out of the seminaries, the churches, the public schools,
etc. They don’t want us to know what the Bible really says about civil
government [ the main topic of my presentation] and rights.”
square? They ripped it out of the seminaries, the churches, the public schools,
etc. They don’t want us to know what the Bible really says about civil
government [ the main topic of my presentation] and rights.”
Get a copy of the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, and a Bible, along with a copy of The Federalist Papers and
start familiarizing yourself with your real rights not what a bunch of crooked
politicians are trying to sell you.
Bill of Rights, and a Bible, along with a copy of The Federalist Papers and
start familiarizing yourself with your real rights not what a bunch of crooked
politicians are trying to sell you.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment