What were our founding fathers thinking?

[The Great Ag]

Constitution of the United States : Article VI


Certain debts, ect. declared valid, Supremacy of Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States, Oath to support Constitution, by whom taken. No religious test.

2. 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.

Am I reading this incorrectly? Any treaty made with another nation or the UN supercedes our Constitution. Our Constitution cannot protect Us from the UN-globalist movement.

Am I wrong in my interpretation?

The Great Ag

[Halophyte]

Nope, you are correct.


.

[GREENSILVERHORN]

So Bush again violated our Constitution, when supersceding U.N.'s resolution on Iraq?

[The Great Ag]

Why would our founding fathers allow a loop hole like this? Why give so much only to have it torn assunder? Unless they are part of a conspiracy.

Bill to Ted, "Strange things are afoot at the circle K"

49 looks and only 2 responses. Come on, give some speculation on why!

The Great Ag

[GREENSILVERHORN]

Maybe they were trying to make it look good to the American Indian?

[WideOpen]

The USA was created as a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY.

[The Great Ag]

The USA was created as a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY.

Understood, but this loophole undermines the Republic. Individual and State sovereignty can effectively be eliminated, and We cannot do anything about it, as the treaty is the supreme law of the land.

The Great Ag

[Carl]

Nope, you are correct.


.Nope, you are both wrong.

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;

The Constitution is the supreme law and all laws, including treaties must conform to its edicts prior to becoming the supreme laws of the land themselves.

There is no loophole.


.

[Halophyte]

Nope, you are both wrong.

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;

The Constitution is the supreme law and all laws, including treaties must conform to its edicts prior to becoming the supreme laws of the land themselves.

There is no loophole.


.



The Constitution is nothing but a contract among men, here's the contract's "loophole".

The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

The framers of the Constitution added this clause due to fear that states would continue a practice that had been widespread under the Articles of Confederation—that of granting "private relief." Legislatures would pass bills relieving particular persons (predictably, influential persons) of their obligation to pay their debts. It was this phenomenon that also prompted the framers to make bankruptcy law the province of the federal government.

This is the "loophole" that ushered in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). thru the Bankruptcy of U.S in 1933 & State of Emergency, War Powers & Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.

This was the "loophole" that allowed the creation of 100% fiat currency, destruction of the gold standard, creation of Brenton Woods, liquidation of the silver coin standard, the creation of Federal Reserve and its thugs the I.R.S.

There's the "loophole" you missed.

Unless you find remedy, the Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the law, it is the enabler of the supreme law - the law of commerce, the law of the high seas, the Uniform Commercial Code.


.

[Anty Ep]

Yes the view articulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and still in fashion is that treaties can be above the constitution. I believe this was a case about migrating birds.

Sorry Haplo this has nothing to do with the commerce clause.

Somebody recently was talking about how the federal executive is wrongfully calling treaties "agreements" to get around the constitutional requirements for treaties-- and that is obviously a bad thing.

Old Jimmy Trafficante really called it before he went in the clink didnt he? Congress is abandoning all its authority and legislative prerogatives to the federal executive.

Jimmy-- he pissed off the Jews and they got back at him. But, karma will find its due.

[Carl]

.......There's the "loophole" you missed....
That's not a loophole, that's a renegade corporate federal government operating outside the limits established by the Constitution. That's Legalese used to usurp the lawful.


.

[mozkill]

so, the constitution makes us require a majority in senate to pass a typical federal law but a national secretary or the president can sign a UN treaty that has equal power to the words in the constitution???

i would argue that no treaty SHOULD have equal power to the constitution UNLESS it has been voted by a 2/3rd majority.

something needs to be cleared up here.

[Carl]

The treaty has "equal force of law" with the Constitution yes but, they have to be made subordinate to the Constitution before they are implemented as supreme law of the land, which should mean that the Constitution will always rule over all.

[Halophyte]

The treaty has "equal force of law" with the Constitution yes but, they have to be made subordinate to the Constitution before they are implemented as supreme law of the land, which should mean that the Constitution will always rule over all.

That's not what I read ...



Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


not•with•stand•ing

Pronunciation: (not"wi&thslash;-stan'ding, -with-), [key]
—prep.
in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by: Notwithstanding a brilliant defense, he was found guilty. She went to the game anyway, doctor's orders notwithstanding.

—conj.
in spite of the fact that; although: It was the same material, notwithstanding the texture seemed different.

—adv.
nevertheless; anyway; yet: We were invited notwithstanding.


In spite of the Constitution and the laws of the state that might be contrary to the treaty.


.

[Anty Ep]

The rationale of that, as I have been told, is that Congress has to have the power to enter into a treaty which may in some ways contravene the Constitution, or else it would lack one of the most fundamental and necessary functions of a parliament or representative assembly, which is, making treaties.

And the alternative would be that in time of war, if the United States were to "lose" for example, if Congress could not legitimately agree to some kind of treaty with terms imposed by the victor that might in some wise contradict the Constitution, well, the nation might fall into anarchy or the victor might simply annihalate the nation itself for want of a legitimate representative with which to parley.

I sometimes wonder about this-- and there's no question in my mind at all that what the Framers considered a necessary power, the current executive (and his immediate predecessor too) have twisted into a loophole that reminds me of the notion of a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

[Carl]

That's not what I read ...



Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


not•with•stand•ing

Pronunciation: (not"wi&thslash;-stan'ding, -with-), [key]
—prep.
in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by: Notwithstanding a brilliant defense, he was found guilty. She went to the game anyway, doctor's orders notwithstanding.

—conj.
in spite of the fact that; although: It was the same material, notwithstanding the texture seemed different.

—adv.
nevertheless; anyway; yet: We were invited notwithstanding.


In spite of the Constitution and the laws of the state that might be contrary to the treaty.


.You're reading it wrong.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

"All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States."

The United States gets its AUTHORITY from the CONSTITUTION.

"anything in the Constitution or laws of any State."

STATE'S CONSTITUTIONS and LAWS cannot supercede treaties or federal laws that are made in pursuance and authority of the United States Constitution.


.

[Veritas]

2. 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.

Am I reading this incorrectly? Any treaty made with another nation or the UN supercedes our Constitution. Our Constitution cannot protect Us from the UN-globalist movement.

Am I wrong in my interpretation?

Slightly.

Nowhere does it state that international treaties shall supercede our Constitution. It states that the treaty will hold equal supremecy as our Constitution. Any treaty (or law) made in direct violation of, or in conflict with, our Constitution shall be null & void.

[Veritas]

Why would our founding fathers allow a loop hole like this? Why give so much only to have it torn assunder? Unless they are part of a conspiracy.

Bill to Ted, "Strange things are afoot at the circle K"

49 looks and only 2 responses. Come on, give some speculation on why!

The Great Ag

Well, many of them were Freemasons....

[Veritas]

i would argue that no treaty SHOULD have equal power to the constitution UNLESS it has been voted by a 2/3rd majority.

2/3 majority of whom?

[Carl]

The rationale of that is; the Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the land with no loopholes, as confermed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which specifically states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


.

[GoldJag]

This wil be good when Clinton is head of the UN. Good times are ahead.
Clinton in UN and Clinton in oval office. Brace your self people.

[firewalker]

The Founding Fathers was a group of individuals and they didn't all have the same ideal of liberty. Whether by active conspiracy or not, the Constitution was certainly a compromise to get the new country together. (eg. 3/5ths of a person)

The Constitution is not perfect and because it has been successfully corrupted, a replacement principle/organizing document will be necessary soon. I believe it's very unlikely we'll be reinstating the Constitution. Maybe we can just do a Consitution 2.0, but I have a feeling it might be more drastic than that.

This goes off topic, but the solution must include ways to limit the power of hierarchical structures (symbolized by the pyramid). "Distributed leadership" or something.

[gunner]

Ever see a copy of the UN declaration of human Rights?

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


This will be our new Constitution - and guess what, people will beg for it. Bush has violated even this piece of garbage so people will clamor for the illusion of it's protection

Similar to raising gas to $3.00/gal, then dropping the price to $2.50 - everyone will be thrilled even though it should be at $1.99

[azxcvbnm321]

All treaties the United States agrees to, that's the key point. The UN or whatever entity can make all the proposals it wants to, but we have to ratify them to be bound by them. The Kyoto treaty is an excellent example. Clinton agreed and signed it, but Congress had to ratify it. Before Congress could decide or vote, Bush took it off the table (wouldn't have passed anyway). The United States also has not signed anything regarding the International Human Rights Tribunal. Thus, none of our soldiers/citizens/etc. can be put on trial for warcrimes, human rights violations, or whatever else outside of this country.

Plus, the President or Congress could just renounce a treaty at anytime. Bush did so with the Missle Treaty with the Soviet Union that forbade the US from developing a missle shield (aka The Starwars Project). We are now moving ahead with development of the missle shield. Congress could overrule with 2/3 majority, but Congress hasn't. So a treaty isn't like something written in the Constitution which requires 2/3rds of Congress AND the President AND 3/4 of the States to change.

[DC7]

What Carl said.

Article IV Section 2 makes sense. It requires judges to nullify laws or parts of State Constitutions that conflict with the US Constitution, laws enacted to carry out the US Constitution, or treaties made by the US within the authority of the US Constitution.

The wording from 1789 may be hard to understand.

(1) This Constitution,
(2) and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;
(3) and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
(4) shall be the supreme law of the land;
(5) and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
(6) anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Translation:

(1) The Constitution of the United States of America,
(2) AND laws enacted to carry out the US Constitution,
(3) AND treaties the US enters (if the treaty's within the authority granted the US by the US Constitution),
(4) take precedence over all other laws,
(5) Judges are bound by them,
(6) when State laws and State Constitutions conflict with them, the US Constitution, laws enacted in it's pursuance, and treaties the US enters (assuming authority) take precedence.

[DC7]

From Article II Section 2 (regarding 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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

...and Article III Section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

[pre-64']

Federalist Paper 33 by Hamilton
..."But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the SUPREME LAW of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to
nothing. A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers entrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed."

http://www.conservativetruth.org/library/fed33.html

[Tn...Andy]

The States always have the option of withdrawing from the Union of States per the 10th admendment.

[Anty Ep]

The States always have the option of withdrawing from the Union of States per the 10th admendment.

They got the option of withdrawing if their state militia can hold off the United States Army.

If General Lee couldnt marshall the Southern states effectively to that task in the 19th century when the state militias were far more indepedent than today, I doubt any state could accomplish it now barring significant environmental circumstances that would change the status quo from the outside.

Like, say, Mexico invading the SW while all our troops are off in the third world, or, the Chinese dumping US debt triggering a federal insolvency. Something major that would disrupt the financial or territorial integrity of the US.

[Tn...Andy]

You are assuming it would take a physical fight.

Not necessarily so.

A state legislature could merely vote to withdraw, and then take it to the Supreme Court if the Feds didn't like it. The Constitution is quite clear on this matter, there being NO PROHIBITION against secession, and all rights not clearly given to the Feds are reserved to the States or People under the 10th.

Had South Carolina less hotheads and resisted the temptation to bomb Ft. Sumpter, instead merely appealing their case to the SC within the scope of reason and law, things might have turned out quite differently.

The PROBLEM is the States have lost all concept of the amount of power they have under the 10th amendment. It is an absolutely awesome amount !

Among the non-violent things the State could do is refuse any more help and contact with the Feds.....tell it's citizens they no longer have to pay ANY federal taxes ( you think THAT wouldn't endear a legislature to it's People ? ), cut off power and utilities to all Federal buildings......ahahahaaa....all kinds of crap short of shooting anyone to get the point across.

Yeah.....One governor with a set of balls and a legislature to back the governor, and I'm convinced we could turn this country around. It wouldn't have to actually GET to the point of secession......especially if a few more States found their nenewed sense of actually BEING A SOVERIGN STATE and told the Feds where to get off.