Sunday, May 22, 2016

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the continued existence of the United States



By Doug Book, Editor

In 2013 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Bond vs the United States. Posted on the Coach is Right website that year, the following piece made it clear that a ruling in favor of arguments presented by Obama Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli would have a disastrous effect on liberty.

In 2012, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) vs Sebelius (ObamaCare) was considered by many to be among the most significant cases heard by the Supreme Court in decades. On its outcome would depend the continued liberty of the American people. For if our elected officials can force the public to purchase health insurance, what can they NOT demand the American people acquire! The full effects of the unconscionable betrayal of the Constitution and the American public by Chief Justice John Roberts have only begun to be realized.

If the NFIB decision pronounced an effective end to our liberty, the Court's ruling in Bond vs U.S. had the potential to literally end the 240 year history of the United States. For at issue in this case was the following question: When the United States joins an international treaty, may Congress pass laws toward its implementation which violate the Constitution?  That is, “When the United States joins a treaty, does the Constitution allow Congress to pass laws to implement that treaty that would normally be unconstitutional?”   A “YES” ruling and the Constitution of the United States would effectively cease to exist.

Representing the Obama Regime, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued before the Court that "...once a treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the Senate, Congress has the power to pass any law necessary and proper to implement the treaty." ANY law! The Constitution's limits on Congressional powers would be ignored at the whim of lawmakers. 

As a result, the United Nations would effectively make the laws by which the American people are governed. The UN Small Arms Treaty would, for example, wipe out the 2nd Amendment as international police acquire full authority to order--even carry out--the disarming of the American people.

The Bill of Rights would become the former law of the land. Express an opinion contrary to pro-Islamic, UN doctrine and an American citizen could be imprisoned as a threat to approved conventions of international law!

The legal history of Bond is a bit involved and not really at issue here. What’s important is the fact that the terms of any treaty entered into by the president and ratified by the Senate will take precedence over the Constitution. Elected representatives may impose legislation based solely upon the terms of any treaty, entered into with any nation, for any purpose.

Americans would become the subjects of a global state; the lawful exercise of their legal rights to be determined by a purely self-interested ruling class.

The result would be a United States in which parents have no right to raise their children except according to accepted international doctrine; property would be subject to "fair and equitable" distribution; unacceptable opinions would expose speakers to penalty or imprisonment and everywhere, informers would gain favor with the powers that be by betraying freedom loving neighbors or family members for carelessly expressed thoughts of liberty.

THE BOND RULING: June 2nd, 2014.

Writing for the Volokh Conspiracy, George Mason law professor Ilya Somin says the Supreme Court’s opinion allowed it to “…avoid the difficult treaty power issue: whether treaties can authorize Congress to legislate beyond the scope of its other enumerated powers.” In short, the Supreme Court refused to make clear its support of the Article 1 limitations on the power of Congress, choosing instead to base its decision on an entirely unrelated issue in the case. The Court issued a cowardly ruling.

Professor Somin continues by describing the basis which the Court should have used for its Bond ruling:

“In my view… a constitutionally valid treaty can only cover subjects that are within scope of preexisting federal power to begin with. A treaty is a contract between national governments. As Federalist 64 puts it, “a treaty is only another name for a bargain.” Just as a valid contract between individuals can only cover such issues as those individuals have a preexisting right to decide, so a treaty between national governments can only address issues within the scope of those government’s powers. Thus, a treaty that goes beyond the scope of Congress’ preexisting authority is invalid to begin with, not simply a possibly valid treaty that Congress lacks the authority to implement.”

Why would the Supreme Court wish to equivocate—indeed, pass altogether—on issuing a ruling of such importance? Though the Court did not decide in favor of Obama Regime arguments it certainly refused to stand four-square against the Administration goal of overturning our constitutional republic.

Why?

No comments:

Post a Comment