Points of No Return Sam Aurelius Milam III
Although most people fail to recognize it, the U.N. has authority and status
in America equal to that of the U.S. government. That statement might inspire some disbelief but support for it exists in the U.S. constitution itself.
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....—Article VI, clause 2 Constitution for the United States of America |
![5x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/5x5_Page_Background.gif)
So, the U.S. constitution isn't the supreme law of the land. It's only one part of the supreme law of the land, of which treaties are another part.
The U.N. charter is a treaty and, therefore, has equal authority with the
U.S. constitution in America, as part of the supreme law of the land.
The U.S. government is created by the U.S. constitution, and is inferior
to it in status. The U.N. is created by the U.N. charter, and is inferior
to it in status. Both documents are parts of the supreme law of the
land, thereby giving both of their respective institutions equivalent authority.
I don't know if other constitutions include provisions analogous to Article VI, clause 2 of the U.S. constitution but, even if they don't, the authority of treaties has long been recognized.
... When therefore a treaty is constitutionally
made ratified and published by us, it immediately becomes binding on the
whole nation and superadded to the laws of the land, without the intervention
of State Legislatures. Treaties derive their obligation from being
compacts between the Sovereign of this, and the Sovereign of another Nation,
whereas laws or statutes derive their force from being the Acts of a Legislature
competent to the passing of them. Hence it is clear that Treaties must
be implicitly received and observed by every Member of the Nation;
for as State Legislatures are not competent to the making of such compacts
or treaties, so neither are they competent in that capacity, authoritatively
to decide on, or ascertain the construction and sense of them …. For
as the Legislature only which constitutionally passes a law has power to
revise and amend it, so the sovereigns only who are parties to the treaty
have power, by mutual consent and posterior Articles to correct or explain
it….—The Journals of the Continental
Congress Vol. XXXII, Jan 17 — Jul 20, 1787, page 178 |
![5x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/5x5_Page_Background.gif)
Historically, nations have been created by the people in a region or, at
least, by the leaders of those people. The existence of such nations
has usually been maintained, when necessary, by the governments of those
nations, using force. Nations, and their governments, have generally
been legitimized by consensus. That is, a nation was a nation because
its people viewed it as such, because its government could defend it, and
because other nations formally recognized it. The system is a bit chaotic
but it has worked well enough for millennia. Now, a change is in the
wind.
In recent decades, the U.N. has become increasingly involved in the management of nations. It influences and manipulates their governments. It's
involved in writing constitutions and in establishing and legitimizing them.
It's involved in all aspects of the internal affairs of nations and governments.
It intervenes in controversies, even internal controversies. It declares
when certain internal policies of a nation are unacceptable. It even
has its own judiciary and its own fledgling army, euphemistically called
"peace-keeping forces". All such meddling in the internal affairs of
nations is entirely contrary to the historically accepted principles of international
law.
.... With regard to every state, international
law only asks whether it be such in reality, whether it actually is invested
with the properties of a state. With forms of government international
law has nothing to do. All forms of government, under which a state
can discharge its obligations and duties to others, are, so far as this code
is concerned, equally legitimate.
Thus, the rule of non-intervention in the affairs
of other states is a well-settled principle of international law.... |
![5x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/5x5_Page_Background.gif)
At a glance, the behavior of the U.N. seems harmless enough, maybe even beneficial. It certainly is presented that way by the various news agencies, most of which
are controlled by governments. The reality is otherwise. In fact,
the U.N. is well along in the process of transforming itself from a forum,
or whatever it was, into a full-fledged government. It's also slowly
reducing the member nations to the status of political subdivisions of that
government.
Before the War Between the States, the United States theoretically had the
constitutional authority to manage the member states. It lacked only
a sufficient power of enforcement. The member states cherished their
fantasies of state sovereignty, left over from the days before they sacrificed
that sovereignty by joining the United States. During the War
Page 2 | Frontiersman,0c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507 http://frontiersman.org.uk/ | January 2014 | |