I understand that many are worried President Obama (and the Senate) will ratify treaties that will effectively amend the U.S. Constitution; and that Obama may do the same through Executive orders. However, neither is possible. True, the government may act as though both are possible, and the courts may even support this subversion, but that does not change the fact that the U.S. Constitution cannot be amended in this manner. But to understand why this is true, we need to understand the relationship between the Natural Right to Contract and the Social Contract, as well as why we stress that form and function are what define a thing or idea. If we understand these three things, we will understand why the President cannot amend the Constitution by treaty or decree, and why any government official who acts as though he can is guilty of subversion and should be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly.
First, we all have a Natural Right to willingly enter into agreements with each other. So long as we do not demand or surrender anything that cannot be taken or given under Natural Law, such contracts are valid and binding on all Parties involved. This same relationship extends to the whole of society when a government is formed. However, as more Parties become subject to a contract, the fewer — not greater — number of stipulations, restrictions and duties can be placed on those Party to the terms of that contract. This is simple logic: the more people involved, the less likely they will all agree. Therefore, when we are dealing with something such as a government, there can only be a bare minimum of stipulations presented. Otherwise, the contract will either be invalid, or it will run the risk of being too big to survive. Future Parties to that Social Contract will reject it and the government will fail.
This is why the U.S. Constitution clearly defines the process by which it is to be amended. The Constitution is the Social Contract which forms the United States and it requires that any changes to the contract be approved by the States. This is a specific rejection of the assertion that amendments can be made by treaty or decree as neither is approved by the States. Simply voting for the President and Senators is insufficient to meet the terms of the Constitutional process for amendment. It is clearly stated that two-thirds of the States must ratify an amendment. Nothing but this process can or does change the Constitution.
Now, the Progressive argument is that treaties are Constitutionally binding, therefore, if they are approved, that effectively amends the Constitution. This is a false argument. If a treaty will alter the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, then the Constitution must be properly amended before the treaty can be ratified, or the treaty is null and void. Regardless of whether or not the Senate ratifies it, a treaty is meaningless if it amends the Constitution. This is because the Constitution clearly stipulates that any substantive change must be made by amendment, and to be an amendment, the Constitutional process must be followed. This is what we mean by form and function. If a treaty changes the Constitution, it is not a treaty, it is an amendment. If it is an amendment, it must follow a different process than treaty ratification. Otherwise, the rights of the States under the Constitution have been violated.
When the Federal government violates the Constitution at this level, it has nullified the Constitution. It would be like you refusing to pay the bank note on your mortgage, but telling the bank you still own the house because you modified the terms of your mortgage and the new terms say you no longer have an obligation to the bank. If you did this, you would quickly discover you have surrendered your rights to your home. It is no different when the government does something like this. When this happens at the national level, the Federal government cedes any claim it has to its authority under the Constitution. All power reverts back to the States and the Federal government is dissolved — whether it recognizes this or not. The key is that the States must either realize this and take back their rights/authority or risk loosing them to what has ceased to be a legitimate government under a Social Contract and become a tyrant under the rules of brute force. This is where we find ourselves today: with a national government that has ceded its Constitutional legitimacy in favor of the tyrannical use of brute force. If you doubt my argument, I can prove my case with one question:
If Obama passed a treaty that declared all whites were now slaves of the UN, would you consider that ‘Constitutional?’
Now be careful with how you answer this question. If you say yes, then you are telling us you not only support slavery, but you believe the President has dictator power to erase the 14th Amendment. If you argue this is not the same thing or that there are ‘shades of grey,’ then you are admitting you support slavery and Presidential dictator powers, you just do not support this form of slavery or act of dictatorship. This is because, inherent in the notion of ‘shades of grey’ is a subjective notion of what you ‘think’ is allowable and what is not. There is no governing contract in such a subjective system as your personal belief. That is why the Constitution was written: to establish a firm foundation by which society could claim protection of its rights. No, the only correct answer is no, the President cannot do this. So how can he force a change in Constitutionally protected rights such as free speech or the right to bear arms? He can’t, and yet he has tried.
The solution here is simple: Obama should be impeached, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. The charge — in this case — is subversion/sedition. Any Senator who ratified such a treaty should have to stand trial with him. they are all guilty of crimes against the States and/or People of the United States. Furthermore, everything they have done to this effect should be immediately nullified and any/all injured Parties made whole. What’s more, the cost of making these Parties whole should be borne first by Obama and those Senators who committed these wrongs, then by their respective political Parties and donors and –finally — by assets in actual possession of the United States Federal government (i.e. lands and properties, as well as other financial assets). The cost of wronging others is to be laid on the shoulders of the person who committed the crime. The States and the People of the nation should in no way be made to pay damages for something they did not do. It does not matter that they elected these people. By swearing their oath of office, they released the People and willingly accepted the personal responsibility for their actions while in office. Any law to the contrary is also null and void. One cannot write a law to give themselves permission to break the law. That is also a Principle of Natural Law.
It is time we either start demanding these people be made to pay the price for their lawlessness, or we accept the chains of our new masters. Before you decide which you prefer, understand two things. If you are not vocal and persistent in demanding justice, you support these people and their actions. Second, if you support lawlessness, you have no grounds by which to claim or demand anything. You have agreed to live as their slave, settling for whatever crumbs they decide to give you.