THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
A Clear And Present Danger - Part 2 of III
Thursday, June 3, 2004
By Albert Burns
Last week, we talked of the threat to American's God-given rights which are supposedly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Our Founding Fathers did everything in their power to guarantee that those rights would never be infringed upon by government. Unfortunately, they could not have foreseen how venal politicians and Supreme Court judges (to put the most charitable interpretation upon their actions) would twist the clear meaning of the Constitution to suit their own evil purposes.
It is not that there is no historical record to establish exactly what the intent of the writers and signers of the Constitution intended. The Federalist Papers and other documents written by the Founding Fathers clearly indicate their intent and the meaning of provisions of the Constitution. Those indications of "original intent" are simply ignored by those in power in Washington today.
I mentioned the "Bricker Amendment" which had been proposed in 1954 by Senator John Bricker as a means to positively stop the "backdoor" methods which were being used to corrupt and negate the U.S. Constitution. This amendment would have protected the Constitution and the rights of American citizens from assault by treaties or executive agreements. It provided, in part, that: "A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with this Constitution, or which is not made in pursuance thereof, shall not be the supreme law of the land nor be of any force or effect."
This would have been an eminently sensible and simple approach to solving the problem. Yet President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles opposed the Bricker Amendment with the full power of their offices. They twisted arms, called in favors owed to them, and generally moved Heaven and earth to oppose this amendment. The amendment failed to pass by ONE vote!
Eisenhower and Dulles claimed that such an amendment would interfere with the President in conducting American foreign policy. You can reasonably ask how the Bricker Amendment could interfere with the conduct of legitimate U.S. foreign policy. Were those who opposed the amendment planning treaties and agreements which would conflict with the U.S. Constitution or were they protecting such agreements already in existence but unknown to the American people?
A case in point: On May 25, 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union "agreed" on a "Joint Declaration Against War Propaganda." Under its terms: "...an American who suggests blockade or invasion of Cuba, or engages in other 'war propaganda' activities may be risking 'condemnations' or 'punishments by appropriate practical measures' including measures in legislative form."
Decoded, that legal double-talk means that offenders may be jailed or have other punitive actions taken against them. (What happened to First Amendment free speech?) In fact, the communists withdrew THEIR approval of the joint declaration only four days later so whether it is still binding on the U.S. is not clear. But with our present government enforcing international agreements which have never been debated or ratified by the Senate, I sure wouldn't want to bet upon THEIR interpretation of that question. It could be a "ticking time bomb" just waiting for some nation to ask the International Court of Justice (World Court) to order the U.S. to "gag" its citizens.
If that ever happens, American citizens have only one protection IF the State Department saw fit to invoke it. Before ratifying the United Nations Charter in 1945, the Senate was wise enough to amend the section dealing with the World Court by barring the Court from jurisdiction over matters which were essentially domestic "AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES." Those six words, authored by Senator Tom Connally (D-Tex), are known as the "Connally Reservation" and are the only thing which COULD prevent the World Court from interfering in American internal affairs on the pretext that our tariffs, immigration laws, school curriculums, etc. affect American relations with other countries and are therefore "foreign" and not "domestic." Very powerful interests in Washington have been trying to get that "Connally Reservation" repealed ever since.
Advocates of internationalism claim that the Reservation is a "roadblock" to "world peace through world law." What they fail to tell the American people is that there is NO SUCH THING as a body of "world law" except in the field of maritime regulation. IN FACT, because of Article 59 of the Statute Of The International Court Of Justice, there WILL BE NO such body of international law! The Statute specifically prohibits the Court from building such a body of international law by FORBIDDING the use of prior decisions as precedents in future cases. Article 59 provides that: "The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case."
Therefore, the "Judges" of the International Court Of Justice could make a decision favoring an enemy of the United States using one set of standards and then decide that same set of standards did not apply when it might favor the U.S. although the circumstances might be exactly the same. These "Judges" are in the unique legal position of deciding what the "law" is to be for each individual case they hear. (Imagine a baseball game where the umpires can change the rules, as they see fit, to favor one team over the other, whenever and however they please!)
Further, there is NO appeal from the decision of these "Judges" no matter how unjust or unreasonable a decision might be. Those decisions could, ultimately, be enforced by the rapidly expanding power of the U.N. "Peace" forces.
It should be clear that the United States cannot endure, as a free and independent nation, unless this "loophole" in the Constitution can be closed. The American people must demand that Congress resurrect and PASS the Bricker Amendment so that it may be ratified by the States. Failure to protect the Constitution from this insidious hidden attack will mean that ALL the sacrifices of America's fighting men and women will have been in vain.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
