Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Clearing up the confusion about Marbury v. Madison

By Publius Huldah

It is true that the Constitution does not expressly say that the federal courts have the power to strike down acts of Congress which are unconstitutional.

What Article VI of the Constitution does say, however, is that (a) the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and (b) judicial officers (among others) are under Oath to support the Constitution.

So what are the logical implications of the foregoing? That when an act of Congress violates the Constitution, and the issue is brought before a court in a lawsuit, it is the sworn duty of the Court to side with the Constitution and against Congress.

Let me give an illustration: Say Congress passes a law requiring all Jews to wear yellow armbands with the Star of David in black, and requiring all Christians to wear white armbands with the cross in black. And Congress makes it a felony for a Jew or Christian to leave their homes without wearing the arm bands. You – a Jew or Christian – go outside without wearing your armband and are arrested and charged with a felony.

If I am your defense counsel [I got my start as a criminal defense attorney and won almost all of my cases, so you would be in REALLY good hands!], the first thing I will do is to file a motion to dismiss the charge against you on the ground that the statute under which you are charged is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress AND as in violation of the First Amendment.

What do you want the Court to do? Do you want them to side with the Constitution? Or do you want them to side with Congress?

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court said when an act of Congress violates the Constitution, the Court must side with the Constitution and against Congress. They were right! That is the Judicial Branch’s “check” on the Legislative Branch.

The Legislative Branch’s “check” on the Judicial Branch is to impeach and remove from office federal judges who violate the Constitution (see e.g., Federalist No. 81 (8th para).

The Executive Branch’s “check” on the Judicial Branch is to refuse to enforce their Orders and Judgments (see e.g., Federalist No. 78 (6th para).

Our Constitution is an elegant piece of work.  Have you read it?

November 7, 2019 Posted by | Checks and Balances, Jucicial Review, Marbury v. Madison, Oath of Office | , , , | 19 Comments

Wolf PAC’s Application (supposedly for “fair and free elections”) for an Article V Convention

By Publius Huldah

The ostensible purpose of Wolf PAC’s proposed amendment to the US Constitution is to circumvent or repeal the US Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The proposed amendment would permit the federal government to restrict political speech and campaign contributions by corporations. Such a proposed amendment would be a major step in eliminating free speech and the private use of money in this country.

1. The federal government does not now have the constitutional authority over the country at large to restrict any form of speech, to restrict campaign contributions, or to limit the spending of money. These are not enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. Furthermore, the exercise of such powers is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. 1

2. The effect of the Wolf PAC amendment would be to increase the powers of the federal government over The People by delegating to the federal government the power to prevent or restrict certain groups and combinations of people from speaking in the public square on the critically important area of political speech. And we won’t find out, until the amendment is drafted  and then construed (and re-construed from time to time) by the federal courts, which groups or combinations of people will be allowed to speak out on political issues and donate money to the causes or candidates they support; and which groups or combinations of people will be prohibited from doing the same.

3. Our problem isn’t that corporations donate money to political campaigns – our problem is that everyone ignores the Constitution. How many of us know the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government? How many know that our Constitution created a federal government of enumerated powers only? If “We the People” had demanded that Congress restrict itself to the enumerated powers, no one would want to spend large sums to influence federal legislation. Who would pay large sums of money to influence Congress’s laws respecting the Bankruptcy Code (Art. I, §8, cl. 4); the patent and copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8); and the standard of Weights and Measures (Art. I, § 8, cl. 5)?!

4. Our federal government is corrupt because it exercises thousands of usurped powers – and special interest groups pay large sums to get unconstitutional legislation favorable to them passed; and legislation unfavorable to them killed.

5. Finally, nothing in Article V, US Constitution, permits the federal or State governments to control the Delegates to an Article V convention. As Sovereign Representatives of “We the People,” the Delegates have the power to do whatever they want, including proposing a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the “self-evident Right” of a people to throw off one government and set up a new one.

As this Rescission flyer shows, it is the globalists who are financing the push for an Article V convention. They use “hooks” – proposed amendments which sound so nice on the surface, such as “term limits”, “getting money out of politics”, a “balanced budget amendment”, “regulation freedom” amendment, amendments to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”, etc. – but it’s bait designed to appeal to specific groups of people to get them to support an Article V convention.

And the reason they want an Article V convention is to get a new Constitution for this Country.

Endnote:

1 To the extent that Congress and the federal courts have in the past restricted such speech and contributions, their acts have been unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated by our Constitution, and as in violation of the First Amendment.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

November 1, 2019 Posted by | Article V Convention, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, free and fair elections, Free Speech, Wolf-PAC | , , , , | 11 Comments

So you think Trump wants to get rid of the Fed?

By Publius Huldah

Yes he does. The Federal Reserve System is collapsing due to the inherent instability of a monetary system, not based on gold & silver, but on the Fed’s “right” to create “money” out of thin air 1 which it then lends to the US Treasury (and is added to the national debt), 2 in order to fund the federal government’s massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending.

This process of allowing the Fed to create “money” out of thin air with nothing behind it has been going on since 1933, when the promise (set forth in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was revoked as to domestic holders; 3 and culminated during 1971, when redemption of the Notes in gold to international holders was also suspended.4

Once the statutory promise to back Federal Reserve Notes with gold was rescinded, the sky was the limit on how much fiat “money” the Fed could create, lend to the US Treasury (and be added to the national debt), in order to fund still more massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending by the federal government.

Now we have reached the point where the federal deficits are so huge and increasing at such a furious pace that our entire fiat “money” financial system is coming apart. 5

So what are we going to do about it? Does Trump want to get rid of the Fed so we can return to the constitutional money system described in Point 2 below?

Trump may say that he wants to return to the gold standard; 6 but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed doesn’t do that. The Globalists’ Plan, which is advanced by USMCA, is to ratchet up the fiat “money” system created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, from a national to a global level with a central bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing and enforcing an international monetary system. And as Edwin Vieira, Ph.D., J.D., warned 8 years ago [here]:

“The true perversity of the present situation lies in the indication … that [a] scheme for a new supra-national monetary order will be sold to a doubting world by attaching some sort of “gold standard” to it….”

1. The IMF and the international fiat “money” system

The IMF is an institution in the United Nations system.

The IMF has already created (it was done during 1969), out of thin air, an international fiat currency called “special drawing right” (SDR). The stated purpose of SDRs was to increase liquidity in settling international accounts by making short term loans to member countries to cover their balance of payments, and other temporary financial problems.

USMCA Art. 33.1 shows that the IMF is to monitor our compliance with the IMF’s Articles of Agreement (please let that sink in).

◊ Article III of the IMF Articles of Agreement provides that the IMF assigns “quotas” to members [that would include the United States], representing the amount the member must pay into the IMF [members may pay their “subscriptions” using their own unbacked currencies]; and in exchange, they get an equivalent amount of SDRs [also unbacked by any precious metal] issued by the IMF.

◊ Article IV, Sections 1-3 of the IMF Articles of Agreement provide that the IMF is to manage the development of an international monetary system [to which we shall be subject]; and is to oversee the member countries’ [that includes the United States] underlying economic and financial conditions and policies in order to promote “sound economic growth” and “financial and economic stability”. I.e., the IMF is going to manage our economy.

USMCA Chapter 17. Financial Services harmonizes the Banking, Insurance, and Investment Practices of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. This harmonization removes previously existing barriers to global regulation of those areas and to merging regional currencies into a global currency. 7

As anyone who reads USMCA can see, the purpose of USMCA is to remove barriers to global regulation of all the areas covered by USMCA, and to advance development of a new global “money” system which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve System.

Look at the Table of Contents for USMCA: All those areas: agriculture, textiles and apparel goods, customs administration, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, telecommunications, intellectual property (patents), labor (which includes immigration and gender & sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace), the environment, etc., are to be made subject to global regulation.

And we exchange our fiat “money” for the IMF’s fiat “money”; the United States loses control over our monetary system; and the IMF, instead of the Fed, will manage the new monetary system – and our economy.

Trump may give grand speeches before the United Nations saying he opposes globalism and supports nationalism, but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed moves us into global government. 8

And the claim that USMCA is about getting favorable tariff agreements for the United States is the Biggest Lie since the Garden of Eden.

2. What our Constitution provides about money

Our Framers created a Constitution which delegates only “few and defined” powers to the federal government. This one page chart lists those powers.

Accordingly, except for national defense, our federal government doesn’t need much money to fund its constitutional powers. So our Framers created a taxing system wherein the funds needed to operate the federal government were raised by the import tariffs and excise taxes authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 1, and by the apportioned direct assessments on the States authorized at Article I, §2, cl. 3. 9

Congress is also authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 2, to borrow money on the credit of the United States; but our Framers intended borrowing money to be restricted to funding national defense. 10

Our Framers also established a money system based on gold & silver:

◊ Article I, §8, cl. 5: “The Congress shall have Power …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,…”

◊ Article I, §10, cl. 1: “No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit 11; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

Accordingly, during 1792, Congress passed an Act establishing a mint and set the standards for the amounts of gold and silver in our coins. Congress took so seriously the purity of our coins that §19 of the Act provided the death penalty for debasement of coins. During 1793, Congress passed an Act regulating the value of foreign coins.

A money system based on gold & silver and a limited taxing system were perfect for a federal government of “few and defined” powers. Furthermore, such systems – if adhered to – would have prevented the emergence of the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

3. Why the Federal Reserve System was established

“…A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project…” James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

Why does Madison refer to paper money as an “improper or wicked project”? Because, among other evils, paper money provides governments with access to unlimited amounts of credit – and that is what was needed to finance the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

When the Progressives 12 took over our Country during the early 1900s, they needed lots of “money” to fund their unconstitutional regulatory and “welfare” schemes. But the federal government didn’t have enough gold and silver coins to fund the regulatory welfare state they wanted. So the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913 to set up a central bank – the “Fed” – which (thanks to fractional reserve banking) would have the power to supply the federal government with the “money” it wanted. 13

So it was access to this credit which enabled the federal government to exceed its constitutional limits.

With this easy credit, the federal government was enabled to “buy” the States by giving them fiat “money” to implement unconstitutional federal programs: State governments literally sold the retained powers of the States and the People to the federal government. A particularly malignant example is U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019” (“red flag” law), which appropriates $20 Million for each of FY 2019-2023 to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the “red flag” legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill. If a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does NOT pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.

Rubio’s bill puts the burden of proof on the Respondent. For eons in Anglo/American Jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT. But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. This is evil.

Rubio’s bill is also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government; and it violates the “Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV, §2; violates the 2nd Amendment; and violates the “due process” clauses of the 5th Amendment and §1 of the 14th Amendment.

How many States and Indian Tribes will surrender their Citizen’s Right to THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE by passing Rubio’s “red flag” law in order to get the “money” from the fed gov’t? 14

If we had preserved the monetary system set up by our Constitution, the federal government wouldn’t have been able to become the totalitarian monster it is today. If you want a limited government, don’t give it unlimited “money”.

4. What States can do

In Part 4 of his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series at sub point [3] and in Part 5, Dr. Edwin Vieira shows how States can protect their Citizens from disaster by setting up an alternative gold currency.

The Tenth Amendment Center has model legislation for States to take some steps in the right direction: See THIS under the heading, “End the Fed from the Bottom Up”.

Open your eyes, Americans. Time is running out.

 

Endnotes:

1 See excerpt from testimony before Congress on Sep. 30, 1941 by the then Governor of the Fed.

2 Robert P. Murphy, Is Our Money Based on Debt?

3 HERE is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. §16 promised redemption of the Federal Reserve Notes in gold. During 1935, §16 was amended to remove that promise: HERE is the amendment, codified as 12 USC §411.

4 See 31 USC §5118.

5 The Fed Has Lost Control

6 The quiet campaign to reinstate the gold standard is getting louder

7 See Joan Veon HERE:

“Globalization is the process of breaking through the protective barriers designed to separate the nation-states from the world system. Between 1944 and 2008 [Bretton Woods I & Bretton Woods II] all the nation-state barriers have been removed with exception of the national regulatory laws governing financial institutions, insurance companies, mortgages, and Wall Street. The real purpose of BWII is to establish the framework for a global regulatory system. This also presents the possibility of merging all regional currencies into a global currency.” [italics added] You can also see her video HERE.

8 See: USMCA and the Quest for a North American Union and The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government.

9 HERE is the Act of 1813 where Congress laid a direct tax of $3 Million upon the United States. It shows how Congress apportioned the tax (based on population) as required by Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3. (See page 93 of the linked pdf edition.)

10 In Federalist No. 41 (5th para up from bottom), Madison says:

“The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. …”

11 Congress is not authorized to create paper money. In “A CROSS OF GOLD”, Dr. Edwin Vieira says:

[at Part 2]: “…America’s Founding Fathers, realists all, denominated redeemable paper currency as “bills of credit”. They knew that such bills’ values in gold or silver always depended upon the issuers’ credit—that is, ultimately, the issuers’ honesty and ability to manage their financial affairs.…” [boldface added]

[at Part 3]: “…every form of “redeemable currency” put out through the Federal Reserve System is, by definition, a governmental “bill of credit”, which Congress has no authority to emit, directly or indirectly.” [boldface added]

When, in 1933, the promise to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was repudiated, the federal government dishonored their “bills of credit”. We should have listened to our Founding Fathers.

12 In the 1880s, the Fabian Society was founded in England. Fabians advocate a gradual transition to socialism [as opposed to violent revolution]. They also hold that the elite – and they are the elite – should run everything [as opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.] In the early 1900s, Fabians took over our Country – here they went by the name, “Progressives”. Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson were Progressives; and the Fabian socialist ideology has dominated our Country ever since.

13 For an education in the basics of the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the creation of “money”, see Robert P. Murphy’s article at endnotes 1 & 2; and Dr. Edwin Vieira’s fascinating explanations of these issues in his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series HERE. Dr. Vieira also shows why we must not accept a new global fiat currency and central bank to replace the collapsing Federal Reserve System.

14 And all that money used to bribe States and Indian Tribes to pass Rubio’s “red flag” law, will be added to the national debt.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

October 6, 2019 Posted by | Edwin Vieira, Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Globalism, gun control, IMF Articles of Agreement, International Monetary Fund, Marco Rubio, Red Flag Laws, The Fed, United Nations, USMCA | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments

Read the Commerce Clause in the Light cast by the other Parts of our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

The parts of our federal Constitution are so interrelated that it is impossible to understand a single clause therein without considering all of the other provisions of our Constitution.

Article I, §8, clause 3, US Constitution, states:

“The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

The original intent of the power to regulate commerce “among the several States” is proved here: Does the “interstate commerce” clause authorize Congress to force us to buy health insurance? That paper proves that the primary purpose of the power is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.

But recently, some have asserted that since “foreign Nations”, “the several States”, and “the Indian Tribes” are grouped together in the same clause, it necessarily follows that Congress’ power to “regulate commerce” with each of them is identical. And since Congress has broad powers over foreign commerce, they conclude that Congress has those same broad powers over interstate commerce, and may lawfully, for example, ban the movement of physical goods [such as firearms] across state lines.

So let’s look at that clause in the Light cast by the rest of the Constitution.

Three totally different and separate entities

Three entities are listed in the same clause at Art. I, §8, cl. 3; but we may not properly conclude that the extent and nature of the regulation permitted over the three entities is the same. That’s because each entity has a distinctly different status, and is treated accordingly in the Constitution.

The several States

The States are the sovereign entities which created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. At Art. I, §10, the States agreed that they would not individually exercise the power to make commercial and trade treaties with foreign Nations; but would exercise that power collectively by delegating to the “creature” of the Constitution – the national government – the power to make such Treaties (Art. II, §2, cl. 2).

The States have a high status: They are The Members of the Federation the States created when they ratified our Constitution. The federal government is merely the “creature” of the constitutional compact the States made with each other when they ratified the Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms.

Foreign Nations

Various provisions are relevant to the power the States delegated to Congress respecting commerce with foreign Nations:

◊ Pursuant to its treaty making power granted at Art. II, §2, cl. 2, the United States may make treaties with foreign nations addressing a great many commercial and trade matters, territorial and fishing waters [our ships won’t fish within X miles of your shoreline, etc.], inspections of products, mutual assistance to merchant ships in distress at sea, assistance to each Party’s sick merchant seamen, etc.

◊ Art. I, §8, cl. 1, grants to Congress the power to levy “Duties, Imposts [tariffs on imports] and Excises”. As they did with the infamous Tariff Act of 1828, Congress has the power to shut down imports from foreign Nations by imposing exorbitant tariffs.

◊ Art. I, §8, cl. 10, grants to Congress power to define Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations. Congress may ban or restrict commerce with foreign nations who fail to rein in their countrymen who are operating pirate ships or violate the Law of Nations.

◊ Art. I, §8, cl. 11, grants to Congress the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. Congress may restrict or ban commerce with warring foreign nations and their allies, and make rules about seizing their cargo (“bounty”).

◊ Imports and exports are unloaded and loaded at dockyards over which the federal government has (pursuant to Art. I, §8, next to last clause) exclusive legislative authority. Congress may make whatever inspection laws need to be made to protect us from contaminated imports – such as agricultural products infested with bugs or diseases, other contaminated products, etc. 1

So Congress’ power to “regulate commerce with foreign Nations” is exercised by means of Treaties the United States makes with foreign Nations, and by means of Laws made by Congress. In the course of exercising this delegated power, the Legislative and Executive Branches have broad authority to restrict or ban commerce with foreign Nations, and determine its parameters.

Congress has no such powers over the Member States.2

Indian Tribes

In Federalist No. 24 (10th & 11th paras), Hamilton speaks of the necessity of keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier which are necessary to protect “against the ravages and depredations of the Indians”; and that some of these posts (garrisons) “will be keys to the trade with the Indian nations.”

In Federalist No. 42 (11th para), Madison speaks of the unsettled status of Indians and says this has been a question of frequent perplexity and contention in the federal councils.

 

So! It is a clear misconstruction of Art. I, §8, cl. 3 to assert that Congress has the same power to regulate commerce between the Member States that it does to regulate commerce with foreign Nations and the Indian Tribes.

James Madison’s letter of February 13, 1829 to J.C. Cabell

In Madison’s letter of February 13, 1829 to J.C. Cabell, he warns that the claim that the power to regulate commerce with the three entities is identical, is superficially plausible, but actually wrong.

He then says, as to the power to “regulate Commerce among the States”:

“… it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse* of the power by the importing States, in taxing the non-importing; and was intended as a negative & preventive provision agst. injustice among the States themselves; rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Govt. in which alone however the remedial power could be lodged. And it will be safer to leave the power with this key to it, than to extend to it all the qualities & incidental means belonging to the power over foreign commerce…” [italics added]

*see the Federalist No 42.”

So Madison warns that we better stick with the original understanding; and not interpret the clause to mean that the federal government has the same broad power over interstate commerce that it has over commerce with the foreign Nations and with the Indian Tribes.

Endnotes:

1 The fed gov’t can’t lawfully ban imports of guns and arms because the 2nd Amendment prohibits the fed gov’t from infringing our right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, a disarmed citizenry is inconsistent with Congress’ obligation, imposed by Art. I, §8, cls 15 & 16, to provide for the arming and training of the Militia of the several States. To see what it was like when we elected to Congress people who knew and obeyed our Constitution, read the Militia Act of 1792. But until We The People learn our Constitution, we will continue to elect ignoramuses to Congress. We cannot be ignorant and free – and you can’t see that a candidate is ignorant unless you are knowledgeable.

2 Domestically, Congress has the power to impose excise taxes on specific articles in commerce. For a discussion of “imposts”, “excises” and the Whiskey Rebellion, see The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

September 10, 2019 Posted by | Commerce clause, Creature of the Compact, Interstate Commerce Clause | , , , , | 13 Comments

How States can Man-up and Stop Abortion

By Publius Huldah

If the American People [and American lawyers] had been properly educated, they would know that our federal Constitution created a federal government of enumerated powers only; and that most of the powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large are listed at Art. I, §8, clauses 1-16, US Constitution.

“Abortion” is not listed among the enumerated powers. Therefore, Congress has no power to make any laws about abortion for the Country at Large.1 And since “abortion” isn’t “expressly contained” in the Constitution, it doesn’t “arise under” the Constitution; and since state laws restricting abortion don’t fit within any of the other categories of cases the federal courts are authorized by Art. III, §2, cl. 1 to hear, the federal courts also have no power over this issue.

So from the beginning of our Constitutional Republic until 1973, everyone understood that abortion is a State matter. Accordingly, many State Legislatures enacted statutes restricting abortion within their borders.

But in 1973, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Roe v. Wade and made the absurd claim that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment contains a “right” to abortion. In Why Supreme Court opinions are not the ‘Law of the Land,’ and how to put federal judges in their place, I showed why the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe is unconstitutional.

But Americans have long been conditioned to believe that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.2 Accordingly, for close to 50 years, American lawyers and federal judges have mindlessly chanted the absurd refrain that “Roe v. Wade is the Law of the Land”; State governments slavishly submitted; and 60 million babies died.

So who has the lawful authority to stop abortion?

1. Congress has constitutional authority to ban abortion in federal enclaves and military hospitals

Over the federal enclaves, Congress has constitutional authority to ban abortion: Pursuant to Article I, §8, next to last clause, Congress is granted “exclusive Legislation” over the District of Columbia, military bases, dock-Yards, and other places purchased with the consent of the State Legislatures (to carry out the enumerated powers).3 Article I, §8, cl.14 grants to Congress the power to make Rules for the government and regulation of the Military Forces. Accordingly, for the specific geographical areas described at Article I, §8, next to last clause, and in US military hospitals everywhere, Congress has the power to make laws banning abortion.

2. But federal courts have no constitutional authority over abortion

Article III, §2, cl. 1 lists the ten categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear. They may hear only cases:

♦“Arising under” the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];

♦Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction];

♦Between two or more States; between a State & 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 Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects [“diversity” jurisdiction].4

These are the only cases federal courts have authority to hear. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):

“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.” [boldface added]

Obviously, State laws restricting abortion don’t fall within “status of the parties” or “diversity” jurisdiction; and federal courts haven’t claimed jurisdiction on those grounds. Instead, they have asserted that abortion cases “arise under” the US Constitution!

But in Federalist No. 80 (2nd para), Hamilton states that cases “arising under the Constitution” concern

“…the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union [the US Constitution]…” 5 [boldface added]

Obviously, “abortion” is not “expressly contained” in the Constitution. So it doesn’t “arise under” the Constitution. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court had to redefine the word, “liberty”, which appears in §1 of the 14th Amendment, in order to claim that “abortion” “arises under” the Constitution.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:

“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [boldface added] 6

Do you see where it says that pregnant women have the “right” to abortion? It isn’t there! So this is what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade to legalize killing babies: They said “liberty” means “privacy” and “privacy” means state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional. And American lawyers and judges have slavishly gone along with this evil absurdity ever since!

3. States must reclaim their traditionally recognized reserved power to restrict abortion!

Since “abortion” is a power reserved by the States or the People, State Legislatures should reenact State Statutes restricting abortion.

When a lawsuit is filed in Federal District Court alleging that the State Statute violates the US Constitution, the State Attorney General should file a motion in the Court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He should point out that the Court has no constitutional authority to hear the case; that Roe v. Wade is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; that “abortion” is one of the many powers reserved by the States; and that the State Legislature properly exercised its retained sovereign power when it re-enacted the Statue restricting abortion.

The State Attorney General should also advise the Court that if the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss, the State will not participate in the litigation and will not submit to any pretended Orders or Judgments issued by the Court.

Now! Here is an interesting fact which everyone would already know if they had had a proper education in civics: Federal courts have no power to enforce their own Judgments and Orders. They must depend on the Executive Branch of the federal government to enforce their Judgments and Orders.7

Since President Trump has proclaimed his opposition to abortion, who believes that he would send in the National Guard to force the State to allow physicians to kill more babies within the State? Please understand: An opinion or ruling from a federal court means nothing unless the Executive Branch chooses to enforce it.8 THIS IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH’S “CHECK” ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH! If the President, in the exercise of his independent judgment, thinks that an Order or Judgment of a federal court is unconstitutional, it is his duty imposed by his Oath of Office 9 to refuse to enforce it.

4. The modern day approach to dealing with absurd Supreme Court Opinions

But most pro-life lawyers will tell you we should proceed as follows: That we need to get a number of States to pass “heartbeat laws”. Pro-abortion forces will then file lawsuits in federal district courts alleging that the heartbeat laws violate Roe v. Wade and are “unconstitutional”. Most States will lose in the federal district courts. But they can appeal to one of the 13 US Circuit Courts of Appeal. Most of the States will also lose in the Circuit Court. But if just one Circuit Court rules in favor of the heartbeat law, then there will be “conflict” among the Circuits and the US Supreme Court is likely to hear the issue. This will give the US Supreme Court the opportunity [years from now] to revisit Roe v. Wade, and they might overrule it!

But I suggest, dear Reader, that we must purge our thinking of the assumption that we can’t have a moral and constitutional government unless Five Judges on the Supreme Court say we can have it. Since it is clear that federal courts have no constitutional authority over abortion, why do we go along with the pretense that they do? Why not just man-up and tell them, “You have no jurisdiction over this issue”?

Our Framers would be proud of you.

Endnotes:

1 Accordingly, the federal Heartbeat Bill and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, to the extent they purport to apply outside federal enclaves and military hospitals, are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large.

2 The Supreme Court was created by Art. III, §1, US Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms. As a mere “creature”, it may not re-write the document under which it holds its existence.

3 In Federalist No. 43 at 2., James Madison explains why Congress must have complete lawmaking authority over the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves.

4 The 11th Amendment reduced the jurisdiction of federal courts by taking from them the power to hear cases filed by a Citizen of one State against another State.

5 Federalist No. 80 (3rd & 13th paras) illustrates what “arising under the Constitution” means: Hamilton points to the restrictions on the power of the States listed at Art. I, §10 and shows that if a State exercises any of those powers, and the fed. gov’t sues the State, the federal courts have authority to hear the case.

6 “Privileges and immunities” and “due process” are ancient Principles of English Jurisprudence well-known to earlier generations of American lawyers. “Equal protection” within §1 of the 14th Amd’t means that with respect to the rights recognized by these ancient Principles, States were now required to treat black people the same as white people. See Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

7 In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton shows why federal courts have no power to enforce their orders and judgments – they must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce them:

“… the judiciary… will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [caps are Hamilton’s; boldface added]

8 During the Eisenhower administration, a federal court ordered the State of Arkansas to desegregate their public schools. But the Governor of Arkansas refused to comply with the federal court orders. So President Eisenhower sent in the National Guard to force Arkansas to admit black students to a public school. See this archived article from the New York Times.

Here, Eisenhower chose to enforce the Court’s Order. But if he had decided that he would NOT enforce it, the schools would have remained segregated. Federal courts are dependent on the Executive Branch of the fed. gov’t to enforce their Orders! This is what Hamilton is talking about in Federalist No. 78.

9 The President’s Oath is to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. II, §1, last clause). It is not to obey the Judicial Branch of the fed. gov’t.

Jefferson’s letter of September 28, 1820 to William Charles Jarvis may be read HERE at page 161.  The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford, Vol. XII.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

June 30, 2019 Posted by | 14th Amendment, Abortion, Alabama Heartbeat law, Article III, Sec. 2, Enumerated Powers of Federal Courts, Federalist Paper No. 78, Federalist Paper No. 80, Federalist Paper No. 83, Judicial Supremacy, Roe v. Wade | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Alan Keyes and Publius Huldah discuss the Constitution and Judicial “supremacy”

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

June 7, 2019 Posted by | IAMtv, Judicial Supremacy | , , , , | 39 Comments

How to nullify Roe v. Wade

To see how the US Supreme Court violated our Constitution when they decided Roe v. Wade, see Why Supreme Court opinions are not the “Law of the Land”, and how to put federal judges in their place

under the subheading, 5. How the Supreme Court violated the “arising under” clause to hear cases they have no constitutional authority to hear.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

May 22, 2019 Posted by | Abortion, Alabama Heartbeat law, Nullification, Roe v. Wade | , , , , | 4 Comments

Alan Keyes Liberty Fest flyer Pigeon Forge, TN April 27, 2019

For details and the schedule visit https://www.iamtv.us/libertyfest/

and for a short video with Alan Keyes discussing the event and introducing the speakers, see:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cShKAEf4UeM

 

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

April 6, 2019 Posted by | Alan Keyes, Liberty Fest | , | 8 Comments

The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government

By Publius Huldah

On November 30, 2018, President Trump, along with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico, signed the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) “Trade Agreement”. “Trade” is in quotes, because the document isn’t about “trade” – it’s about setting up global government. “Agreement” is in quotes because the document is a “treaty” – and that invokes the two-thirds ratification requirement of Art. II, §2, cl. 2, US Constit.

The USMCA Treaty (“Treaty”) was negotiated by U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which works to move the United States into the North American Union (NAU). 1

The Treaty advances the economic and regulatory integration of the three Parties. It is the precursor to the political integration the globalists seek with the NAU. 2

1. Summary of objections to the Treaty

Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the “organic law” of our Land. 3 Treaties, like Acts of Congress, hold a lesser status: they are part of “the supreme Law of the Land” only when they are authorized by “organic law” – our Constitution (Art. VI, cl.2). 4

While the United States is clearly authorized by Art. I, §8, cl.3 & Art. II, §2, cl.2, US Constit., to enter into Treaties with foreign Nations addressing Commerce; 5 the United States may not lawfully transfer to global or multi-national bodies, powers which “WE THE PEOPLE” delegated to our federal government when We ratified our Constitution. But that is what the Treaty purports to do.

Even worse, the Treaty also purports to delegate to global or multi-national bodies powers which We never delegated to our federal government – but reserved to the States or the people.

The Treaty establishes a bureaucratic multi-national government which is to control all aspects of commerce and to which the United States, Mexico and Canada will be subject.

The Treaty incorporates by reference many other documents. Its frequent use of new terminology requires one to constantly refer to the various definition sections spread throughout the 34 Chapters. It engages in the pernicious practice of making a statement, and then qualifying it by phrases such as, “unless otherwise provided in this Agreement” and “unless the Parties decide otherwise”. 6

2. Powers We delegated to our federal government

When the People of the United States ratified our Constitution, We “created” the federal government. Article I created the Legislative Branch and itemized its powers. Article II created the Executive Branch and itemized its powers. Article III created the Judicial Branch and itemized its powers. Each Branch of the federal government is thus a “creature” of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. None of the delegated powers may lawfully be re-delegated to global or multi-national bodies.

The Treaty violates the following provisions of our Constitution:

♦ At Art. I, §1, We vested in Congress, all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution.

♦ At Art. I, §8, We granted to Congress the powers

o Clause 1: To lay and collect Imposts (import tariffs)

o Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations

o Clause 5: To coin Money and regulate the Value thereof

o Clause 8: To issue Patents and Copyrights

♦ At Art. I, §9, cl. 1: Commencing January 1, 1808, We granted to Congress the power to control Migration (immigration) to the United States.

♦ At Art. II, §2, cl. 2, We granted to the President the power to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

♦ At Art. III, §2, cl. 1, We declared that the judicial Power of the United States shall extend

o to all Cases arising under Treaties made under the Authority of the United States

o to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party

♦ At Art. IV, §4, We imposed upon the United States the duties to:

o guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government; and

o protect each of the States against Invasion.

♦ At Art. VI, cl. 2, We declared that our Constitution, and Acts of Congress and Treaties authorized by the Constitution, is the “supreme Law of the Land”.

♦ In the 10th Amendment, We declared that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people.

Art. I, §8, cl. 1 – to “lay and collect Imposts”

Our Constitution delegates to Congress the power to set the amounts of the tariffs on foreign imports.

The Treaty divests Congress of the power to unilaterally determine our tariffs. USMCA Art. 2.4 7 says:

“1. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, no Party shall increase any existing customs duty, or adopt any new customs duty, on an originating good.

2. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party shall apply a customs duty on an originating good in accordance with its Schedule to Annex 2-B (Tariff Commitments)”.

Art. I, §8, cl. 5 – to coin Money and regulate the Value thereof

Our Constitution delegates to Congress the power to control our money.8

But with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congress and Woodrow Wilson unlawfully transferred power over our money to an international cabal of privately owned banks – the “Federal Reserve”.

Shortly after WWII, the United States joined the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 9 James Perloff’s article, Council On Foreign Relations – Influencing American Government, speaks of how the World Bank and IMF act as

“…a loan-guarantee scheme for multinational banks. When a loan to a foreign country goes awry, the World Bank and IMF step in with taxpayer money, ensuring that the private banks continue to receive interest payments. Furthermore, the World Bank and IMF dictate conditions to the countries receiving bailouts, thus giving the bankers a measure of political control over indebted nations.”

The Treaty surrenders the United States’ power over money and our economy to the IMF. USMCA Art. 33.1 defines “Article IV Staff Report” as the report prepared by the IMF respecting a country’s adherence to Art. IV, Section 3 (b) of the IMF Articles of Agreement. Section 3 provides that the IMF shall oversee the compliance of each member with its obligations under Section 1 of Article IV. Section 1 requires each member to “direct its economic and financial policies toward the objective of fostering orderly economic growth with reasonable price stability”, and to foster “orderly underlying economic and financial conditions and a monetary system that does not tend to produce erratic disruptions” [i.e., our economy is to be planned by the IMF].

Article IV, §3 (b) of the IMF Articles of Agreement states that the IMF “shall exercise firm surveillance over the exchange rate policies of members”, and “shall adopt specific principles for the guidance of all members with respect to those policies”. USMCA Art. 33.4 confirms that the three Countries are “bound under the IMF Articles of Agreement to avoid manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system”; but private manipulators (George Soros) don’t seem to be bound by that restriction.

USMCA Art. 33.6 establishes a Macroeconomic Committee which “shall monitor the implementation of this Chapter and its further elaboration.” Paragraph 5 of Art. 33.6 empowers the Committee to amend and issue “interpretations” of Chapter 33; and declares that such interpretations “shall be deemed to be an interpretation issued pursuant to a decision by consensus of the Commission.” USMCA Art. 1.4 defines “Commission” as “the Free Trade Commission” established under USMCA Art. 30.1.

Art. I, §8, cl. 8 – to issue Patents and Copyrights

The purpose of delegating the power to issue Patents and Copyrights to Congress is to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”.

The Treaty subordinates these property rights to the collective. USMCA Art. 20.2 states:

“The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.”

Article 20.3 prohibits the Parties from making any laws or regulations inconsistent with Chapter 20; and

requires that any measures to protect property rights be “consistent with the provisions of this Chapter”. The Parties are “to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders. Article 20.5 requires each Party to ensure “that measures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade” or “contravene this Chapter”.

Article 20.7 requires the Parties to ratify or accede to a long list of international “agreements” including the World International Property Organization’s (WIPO) Patent Law Treaty. The WIPO is an agency of the United Nations.

The 64 pages of Chapter 20 have nothing to do with protection of property rights in Inventors. Instead, Chapter 20 subordinates ownership of those rights to the collective; and establishes the framework for global government of patents and copyrights. 10

Art. I, §9, cl.1 grants to Congress power over Migration;

Art. IV, §4 requires the United States to protect each of the States against Invasion;

and Art. I, §8, cl. 15 authorizes the use of the Militia to repel invasions

Our Framers understood that control over who enters our Country is an essential element of sovereignty.

But the Treaty subordinates the United States’ sovereign power over immigration to global and multi-national bodies. USMCA Art. 16.2 declares:

“3. Nothing in this Agreement prevents a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under this Chapter.” [italics added]

Article 16.8 declares:

Except for this Chapter, Chapter 1 (Initial Provisions and General Definitions), Chapter 30 (Administrative and Institutional Provisions), Chapter 31 (Dispute Settlement), Chapter 34 (Final Provisions), Article 29.2 (Publication), and Article 29.3 (Administrative Proceedings), this Agreement does not impose an obligation on a Party regarding its immigration measures.” [italics added] 11

USMCA Art. 23.1 cites the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work” (1998), as guiding the treatment of labor issues under the Treaty. The ILO is an agency of the United Nations (UN); and part of the ILO’s “social justice” agenda is to formulate “fair migration schemes in regional integration processes”.

So this is how the UN is to dictate immigration policy for the “regional integration” of Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Art. II, §2, cl. 2, grants to the President the power to make Treaties,

provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur

Chapter 30 of the Treaty establishes the Free Trade Commission. It is the governing body of the bureaucracy which is created by the Treaty. Among other powers, the Commission supervises the work of all committees and other subsidiary bodies established under the Treaty; has the power to merge or dissolve committees and other subsidiary bodies; and has the power to “consider” proposals to amend or modify the Treaty. While Art. 30.2, 2. (c) lists six areas where modifications of the Treaty are subject to completion of “applicable legal procedures by each Party”, it does not require that other types of modifications of the Treaty be subject to such approval of the Parties.

And while USMCA Art. 34.3, 1. provides, “The Parties may agree, in writing, to amend this Agreement”, it doesn’t say that is the exclusive means of amendment. Accordingly, we must consider Art. 34.3 as providing an additional means of amendment.

USMCA Article 30.2, 2. (f) grants to the Commission power to “issue interpretations” of the Treaty; and the footnote thereto says that its interpretations “are binding for tribunals and panels established under Chapter 14 (Investment) and Chapter 31 (Dispute Settlement).”

And since, as noted above, the “interpretations” of Ch. 33 issued by the Macroeconomic Committee are considered as “interpretations” issued by the Free Trade Commission, the “interpretations” of the Macroeconomic Committee will also be binding on the tribunals deciding disputes between the Parties.

We thus permit the “creature” of the Treaty to modify the document under which it holds its existence!12

Art. III, §2, cl. 1, grants to U.S. Courts the Power to decide all Cases arising under Treaties &

all Controversies to which the United States is a Party.

In violation of our Constitution, the Treaty restricts the Parties to the dispute settlement procedures laid out in the Treaty.

Chapter 31 of the Treaty addresses resolution of disputes involving violations of the Treaty or “interpretations” of the Treaty issued (or “deemed to be issued”) by the Free Trade Commission. Disputes are heard by a panel of five drawn from a roster of up to 30 individuals appointed by the Parties. The panel is to make findings of fact and determinations and issue a report. If the disputing Parties don’t agree on the report, the complaining Party may suspend various benefits held by the responding Party under the Treaty.

Article 31.3 limits the Parties’ choice of a forum for dispute resolution to that set forth in the Treaty or in another international trade agreement to which the disputing Parties are signatories.

Article 31.20 permits a Party to intervene in proceedings already pending in a domestic judicial or administrative forum which involve the interpretation or application of the Treaty. The purpose of such intervention is to inform the domestic tribunal of the “interpretations” of the Treaty issued (or “deemed to be issued”) by the Free Trade Commission. Thus, the “interpretations” of the Treaty issued by the “creature” of the Treaty are to be foisted on our domestic courts and administrative law judges!

Note that Art. 31.21 expressly forbids a Party from making a law which grants a right of action against another Party on the ground that a measure of the other Party is inconsistent with the Treaty.

3. Powers reserved by the States or the People which the Treaty transfers to global organizations

Our Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. Most of the powers delegated to the federal government over the Country at large are listed within Art. I, §8. See this Chart.

Labor

We did not delegate to our federal government power over labor issues. However, beginning in the early 1900s, we permitted our federal government to exercise, by usurpation, powers over labor issues.13 As a result, we got the federal Department of Labor, a host of Acts of Congress addressing labor issues, and a plethora of Rules issued by the Department and published in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department, its Rules, and the Acts of Congress are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. The Rules are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1, US Constit.

Chapter 23 of the Treaty transfers those usurped powers to the United Nation’s International Labor Organization (ILO).

Article 23.1 defines “labor laws” as the statutes and regulations of a Party that are directly related to “internationally recognized labor rights” such as the “right” to collective bargaining; and which require Parties to make laws to provide wage-related benefits payments for workers such as profit sharing, bonuses, retirement, and healthcare.

Here are some of the dictates set forth in the Treaty with which US laws and agency rules must comply:

♦ At Art. 23.2, the Parties affirm their obligations stated in the ILO’s Declaration on Rights at Work and Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).

♦ Article 23.3 dictates that “Each Party shall adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder,” various rights, as stated in the ILO’s Declaration on Rights at Work; and “Each Party shall adopt and maintain statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, governing acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.”

♦ Article 23.5 requires each Party to “effectively enforce its labor laws”.

♦ Article 23.9 requires each Party to implement policies to protect workers against employment discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and caregiving responsibilities; and to provide job-protected leave for birth or adoption of a child and care of family members; and to protect against wage discrimination.14

Additional Reserved Powers transferred to global or multi-national bodies

The USMCA Treaty is long and complex: see the Table of Contents. Here are brief comments on some of the other powers reserved by the States or the People which are unlawfully transferred by the Treaty:

Chapter 19 addresses digital trade. Article 19.5 requires each Party to maintain a legal framework governing electronic transactions consistent with the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996. That model law is a product of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

Chapter 21 addresses competition policy. Article 21.1 requires each Party to maintain and enforce “national competition laws” which proscribe “anticompetitive business conduct”. The Parties are to apply those laws to “all commercial activities in its territory.” Article 21.4 requires each Party to adopt or maintain national consumer protection laws or regulations that proscribe fraudulent and deceptive commercial activities.

Chapter 24 addresses environmental laws. Article 24.3 requires each Party to ensure that its laws provide for high levels of environmental protection. Article 24.4 requires each Party to enforce its environmental laws. Article 24.9 requires each Party to control the production and use of substances which deplete or change the ozone layer [and on & on for 30 pages].

4. The Death of the Republican Form of Government

In a “republic”, the sovereign power is exercised by representatives elected by the People.

Article IV, §4, US Constit., requires the United States to guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

But the USMCA Treaty, time after time, delegates the exercise of sovereign power to various panels, Committees, Commissions, UN organizations, and others – not one of which is elected by the People.

5. Don’t fall for the carrot dangled in your face!

The Treaty reportedly contains some tariff benefits to various industries in the United States such as the auto and dairy industries. Their profits (at least for a while) should increase as a result of the Treaty. And for that, We are to surrender our sovereignty to the globalists?!

6. The 1815 Free Trade Treaty between the United States and Great Britain

On Dec. 6, 1815, President James Madison sent this treaty to the Senate for ratification. It is two pages long. Unlike the USMCA Treaty, it doesn’t set up a government over the United States and Great Britain—thus proving that trade treaties need not surrender our sovereignty. And Madison’s treaty doesn’t require a lawyer skilled in sniffing out dirty tricks to understand what it does.

7. Conclusion

In Federalist No. 22 (last para), Alexander Hamilton said that one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation (AOC), our first Constitution, was that it was never ratified by the PEOPLE. Because the only foundation for the AOC was the consent of state legislatures, questions had arisen concerning its validity.

This is why Art. VII of our second Constitution (the one we have now) provides for its ratification by Conventions held in each of the States. In support of the ratification method set forth in Art. VII, Hamilton wrote:

“…The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” [caps are Hamilton’s].

This is why our Constitution begins with, “WE THE PEOPLE”. WE consented to it.

But the USMCA Treaty sets up global government over the economic issues covered by the Treaty. It is NOT to be submitted to THE PEOPLE for their consent. The globalists who infest our Legislative and Executive Branches (the latter of which, as the Perloff article points out, has been dominated by the Council on Foreign Relations for over 70 years) want the Treaty ratified by a simple majority vote in Congress. 15

The USMCA Treaty is illegitimate; and the global government it imposes is tyrannical.

Endnotes:

1 Here is the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report on the NAU.

2 The US Constitution is unique. It is (1) a written Constitution (2) which created the federal government; (3) listed the handful of powers granted to the federal government; and (4) has as its Foundation the Consent of The People. As our “Organic Law”, it is the standard by which the lawfulness of legislative Acts and Treaties is measured. Its existence undermines the political integration of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. That’s why the globalists want an Article V convention – to get a new constitution for the US which won’t stymie their plans.

3 “Organic law” is “the fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation…”

4 On the lesser status of treaties in relation to our Constitution: The objects on which the United States may enter into treaties are restricted to the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government – see authorities cited in this paper. On the lesser status of Acts of Congress: Federalist No. 78 (11th & 12th paras) says that when an Act of Congress violates the Constitution, “the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute”; judges “ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.”

5 See authorities quoted here.

6 The treaty is long, intricate, and tricky. This paper addresses only parts of it. We are insane to allow treaties “… so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood…” Federalist No. 62 (4th para from end).

7 To get an idea of the extent of the regulations on custom duties, skim all 72 pages of Chapter 2.

8 And our money is to be based on gold & silver (Art. I, §10, cl. 1). In Federalist No. 10 (next to last para), Madison warns against “A rage for paper money…or for any other improper or wicked project…”.

9 Perloff says the initial planning for the World Bank & IMF was by the Council on Foreign Relations.

10 Ayn Rand warned 60 years ago in Atlas Shrugged that if we didn’t change course, our Inventors and Authors would lose their property rights.

11 They left out Chapter 17, which addresses cross-border financial services. Art. 17.5, 1. (d) (iv) declares:

“No Party shall adopt or maintain… a measure that…imposes a limitation on… the total number of natural persons … that a … cross-border financial service supplier may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the supply of a specific financial service…”

12 To allow the “creature” of a treaty to modify the treaty under which it holds its existence violates the Fundamental Principle of free government. See this paper under subheading 1 and its endnotes.

13 Our Framers said that if we want the fed. gov’t to have a power the Constitution doesn’t grant, we should amend the Constitution to delegate the additional power – we must not permit it to exercise the power by usurpation. See this paper under the subheading, “Washington’s Farewell Address”.

14 The footnote to USMCA Art. 23.9 says the United States’ existing policies regarding the hiring of federal workers is sufficient to fulfill the obligations set forth in Art. 23.9. We can be sure that the requirements of Art. 23.9 will later be extended to all employment in the United States.

15 Twelve Republican US Senators, by letter of Nov. 20, 2018, urged Trump to send the “Agreement” right away so it could be passed by the lame duck session of Congress by a simple majority vote.

January 27, 2019 Posted by | James Perloff, Treaty Making Powers of the United States, United States-Mexico-Canada, USMCA | , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Yes! Trump has constitutional authority to secure our Southern Border

By Publius Huldah

Instead of reading our Constitution and seeing what it says, Americans get their legal advice from what “everybody says”.

Now, they are hearing about “emergency powers”, and are in a tail spin. Did Congress’ “Emergency Powers Act” delegate to the President the power to call whatever he wants an “emergency” & then do what he deems best?

Our focus shouldn’t be on what can be called an “emergency”; but what does our Constitution authorize the federal government to do (if anything) with respect to the hot topic of the day?

Let’s look at Migration (immigration) in the context of the hordes of aliens storming thru our Southern Border. What does our Constitution say about it?

Art. I, § 9, clause 1, delegates power over Migration (immigration) to Congress. So Congress is to make the immigration laws; & the President, as Chief Executive, is to put Congress’ laws into effect.

Art. IV, § 4 REQUIRES the United States to protect each of the States against Invasion.

Art. I, § 8, clauses 15 & 16, authorize the calling up of the Militia for 3 purposes: to execute the Laws of the Union; to suppress Insurrections; and repel Invasions.

Art. II, § 3 authorizes the President to recommend to Congress such measures as he deems necessary and expedient; to convene Congress on extraordinary occasions; and requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (that includes the immigration laws.)

Art. II, § 2, provides that the President is CINC of the armed forces. He is CINC of the Militia when it is called into active service of the United States. As noted above, the Militia may be called into active service to “repel invasions”.

So those are the Constitutional Provisions which apply to the invasion of our Southern Border.

America is finished if we don’t control our Southern Border. Congress and the President have clear constitutional authority – actually, they have the DUTY – to control our Southern Border.

The best way the control the Southern Border is to build a wall. [I know from personal observation during the Cold War that the wall the Soviets built between East & West Germany prevented people in the East from escaping to the West.]

What if Congress refuses to fund the wall? Must the President tell the American People, “Well, I tried. But my hands are tied. You better get ready for civil war.”

No! Art. IV, § 4 imposes on the United States the Duty to protect each of the States against invasion. If Congress won’t do it, the President must. He is Chief Executive of the United States. For him to refuse to act for the reason that Congress won’t fund the wall would be as contemptible as the Husband and Father who refuses to get armed to protect his Family because the government says he can’t be armed.

So, the President may solicit donations from the American People for funds, labor, and construction materials, to build a wall.

About “calling up the Militia” to “repel invasions”

We no longer have the Militia provided for at Art. I, §8, clauses 15 & 16.

During 1903, the American People and their federal and state legislators (who had all “mainlined” on Progressivism) went along with the federalizing of the Militia. This was done with the grotesquely unconstitutional federal Dick Act of 1903. ¹ That unlawfully converted the Militia into the National Guard, which is an adjunct of the federal military.

If we still had the “Militia of the several States”, it would be obvious that the Militia must be  – and could be – called into national service to repel the “invasion” coming through our Southern Border.

But since we no longer have the Militia, we must rely on the closest thing to a Militia we have left: The National Guard.  Congress has passed a law which authorizes the President to call the National Guard into national service. When I get time, I’ll locate it and link to it – but the President probably has authority to call up the National Guard to protect our Southern Border and the construction workers while the Wall is being built.

But if Push comes to Shove, the President has the Clear Duty to protect our Southern Border and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

Remember – the Questions are always: “What does the Constitution authorize” & “What Duties does the Constitution impose on the federal government?”

There is no substitute for reading the Constitution for yourself. Article by Article – and then seeing how the Articles all work together – hand in glove. It really was a 6,000 year miracle.

Endnote:

¹ The Dick Act was unconstitutional – as well as malignant – because it converted the Militia [which was controlled by the States unless called into federal service for one of the three stated purposes] into an entity which is controlled by the federal government.  That the Dick Act passed shows that Americans of 100 years ago were also ignorant, short-sighted, and foolish.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

January 15, 2019 Posted by | Article IV, Sec. 4, Build the Wall!, Control the Border, Dick Act of 1903, Militia | , , , , , , , | 47 Comments

%d bloggers like this: