Periodically, the United States Government will publish a compendium of its “Treaties in Force”.
These are international treaties to which the President of the United States, with the consent of the Senate, has agreed to subject the whole of the United States to.
These treaties supersede both Federal Law and State Law.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TIF-2020-Full-website-view.pdf
Some significant ones listed:
-
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION - TAXATION - Tax reimbursement agreement, with annex. Signed at Washington September 17, 1997. Entered into force September 17, 1997. TIAS 12883
-
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW - TAXATION - Tax reimbursement agreement, with annex. Signed at Rome September 17, 2013. Entered into force September 17, 2013. TIAS 13-917
-
Geneva Convention on road traffic, with annexes and protocol. - Done at Geneva September 19, 1949. Entered into force March 26, 1952. 3 UST 3008; TIAS 2487; 125 UNTS 22 Depositary: United Nations
Please let me know significant ones to add to the list.
Which of these should we want revoked and why?
How would one go about working to revoke these, and what would the consequences be?
Was the ability to enter into treaties delegated from the President to the Secretary of State?
Thanks to u/bubble_bursts and u/AlgaeBanquet for reminding me about intending to make this thread.
More posted as I dig through the document myself.
Great add from u/Malachi3vs16
https://greatawakening.win/p/19Bt7CVxPE/x/c/4eVKnI9MaNq
So Treaties in Force, do they supercede the Constitution?
UN Participation Act of 1949, is all legislation meant to comply with the UN? The Security Council replaced the League of Nations as the law-making organ of the UN, its decisions are binding, UN General Assembly resolutions are expressions of will, but not legally binding.
Under the UN there are regional organizations with Declarations of Human Rights, so USA is part of the Organization of American States (OAS) and it has a court of human rights. The human rights document for the Americas is actually pro-life which is interesting, went into effect before Roe v. Wade if I remember correctly. Here’s the OAS charter https://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_A-41_charter_OAS.asp & *“American Convention on Human Rights”*https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.pdf
Reid v. Covert treaties cannot supersede the Constitution, and when applied treaties cannot abrogate individual rights or separation of powers of government.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/1/
Behold A Pale Horse has good discussions on how internationalists intended for the UN to allow Congress to make laws which without the UN such new laws could not be passed. And the Cooley and Norton scholars are brought upon the topic.
https://archive.org/details/behold-a-pale-horse-william-cooper_202302/mode/2up?q=treaties
I like the opinion of Reid v. Covert
Asia does not have a comprehensive organization or system. During the Cold War, the Communist Bloc nations had their International Covenant on Civil &Political Rights & western Bloc nations had for their human rights framework the Intl. Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
And we know how Obummer & sHillary treated Qadaafi as he helped lead the African Union.
According to the Constitution, NOTHING supersedes it.
End of Story
This.
His comment says that treaties don’t supersede the constitution, and my post doesn’t claim they do, either.
Law is a different story. Feel free to dig on whether they supersede existing federal/state laws and statutes, or if it’s only that future laws/statutes have to be in compliance, or if treaties are just suggestions that don’t have any effect on any of those. They surely do, or they wouldn’t be makeable.
I listed one treaty in force that I already have a post drawn up on that seems to have either superseded state law or had a definitive hand in creating it. Will link it back to this post when I make it.
If those staites and laws follow the constitution they cant be superceded. If they dont, they dont matter for shit anyway.
I’ll try to remember to tag you when I do that more detailed writeup.
Treaties are laws. They supersede (lay on top of) the Constitution in a way, because they are part of the legal framework written into the Constitution which is designed to put all laws on top of the Constitution. These laws have to supersede the Constitution to function.
What I think you mean is that Treaties (or any contract between parties) have Jurisdiction of the Constitution (or the people who enforce the Constitution), and in that case they only do if the other party is powerful enough to enforce their will.
That is the case of ALL LAWS, including Treaties, or Constitutions, or whatever. That is the fundamental premise of social limits (AKA laws).
The Constitution is nothing but a legal framework (a "governmental corporation"). It is written in such a way that it can change over time, as the needs are warranted. Any law within the governmental corporation we call the "US Govt." becomes part of the Constitution the moment it is written (or signed, or whatever, i.e. ratified). It can become "un-Constitutional" if the Judicial Branch says so (ultimately determined by SCOTUS), or by those laws that fall into the other branches (Executive or Legislative) if those laws are within their Jurisdiction, or if they are part of the Prime System ("Constitution") by democratic vote. Treaties can be cancelled any time by any branch (I think). Any such act is an act of war because it is a breach of contract, exactly the same as any other breach of contract.
The "Constitution" is just a barebones legal framework AKA a set of laws AKA a legal fiction that creates the legal (AKA fictional) limits of the system of government (a governmental corporation). It isn't more important than any other law really. It's really all about who determines which people can enforce and/or cancel which laws. But by Natural Law, all are subject to the individual.
All laws, all Constitutions, all Treaties, all contracts are subject (fall under the Jurisdiction of) the Individual by Natural Law. There are consequences of any breach of contract ("breaking the law"), but those consequences are only meaningful if their is a powerful enough group of people willing to enforce their will (another act of war).
That is ultimately how every such interaction in "law" works.
I completely disagree with your premise and explanation of the constitution and its standing. as the supreme law of the land; All law must fit into it and not violate it. Its primary function is to limit government duties and power, and frame its operations, its second function is to notify the citizen of its limits on government including the 10th thst states thst the state and the citizen have the final say. Supreme above the state is the individual who is not controlled by any manner but his conscience. It was hoped a man would frame his conscience with Gods Word which is the supreme law of the world weather people want to believe that or not.
I realize you stated later that you may have misunderstood me, but since you didn't address anything specifically, I would still like to address what you said.
The Constitution is not the "supreme law of the land," Natural Law is. The Constitution is just a legal (AKA fictional) framework which defines the fictional limits of the governmental corporation (AKA a fictional entity).
Well, all law can violate the framework (Constitution)l, and indeed it happens all the time. Whether or not a law is such a violation is subject to interpretation (opinion). Indeed, the debates on those opinions are effectively (in practice) the primary role of our government, i.e. that is what we have been trained to focus on. With regards Natural Law, all human laws cannot violate them, but people can believe that they can through our fiction. People believe that that fiction is reality, and through that belief they can act in "violation" of the Natural Laws. That is a function of training (brainwashing) from the PTB, not actual.
Well, its primary function is really to create a false reality. If people understood that, its falseness could be used to help aid social interactions. In some ways it does aid in social interactions, but without a fundamental appreciation of what it really is (create a false reality), it generally attempts to violate our Jurisdiction. A list of the Real Laws includes our Sovereignty and our Jurisdiction. Human laws, our fictions, can give us grease for a bunch of Sovereigns. That only works if ALL people (or at least most people, including and especially all the people in government) understand its primary function; to wit, to provide grease through the creation of agreed upon fictions for Sovereigns to interact peacefully..
The way it is commonly phrased ("limit government duties and power"), which I otherwise agree with (though as a secondary function, or perhaps an elaboration) , doesn't explicitly explain in detail what its primary function is. That is intentional imo, and intentionally put in through the frame work of its representational government (the "Republic"). That doesn't mean that a Republic can't function without the fuckery, I am only saying that the definitions of our Republic aid in the fuckery.
The problem with that is, it is ripe for abuse through Mob Rule. And that's if that abuse is functioning properly (by design).
The First Rule must be "You are Sovereign, and your Jurisdiction can't be violated by Natural Law". That First Rule must be branded on our soul (indeed, it is, though that brand is covered over, by design). It being the required First Rule for any reasonable government isn't really a "rule," it's really just a required declaration of what is, so that everyone understands what's really going on. That declaration helps prevent the fuckery of brainwashing and lying, nothing more. That "First Rule" was stated in the DOI, but it was fucked with in the Rhetoric to create false beliefs, and it never made it into the Constitution. Indeed, there are direct (attempted) violations of our Sovereignty and our Jurisdiction all over the place. The most easily seen of those violations (or attempted violations) is in the 5th Amendment, though there are other violations just as bad, even if they are more subtle.
The Supreme Law of the Universe was written on the conscience of man by The Source of All Things. I disagree that it didn't happen. It did. We have just been taught to subdue our fundamental understanding of what that means.
I also disagree that "God's Word" was a part of that writing. (Assuming you mean the Bible, or at least the first half of it, collectively called the Tanakh, or "Old Testament" if you prefer.)
The foundational part of "Gods Word" (OT) was actually written, without controversy, by a bunch of Jewish Elites (Levites, AKA the Priest Class). This group were the direct descendants of other Jewish Elites (mostly Levites) trained in Babylon. Their "God" was named YHWH, and their writings (later called the Tanakh) were all about how the people of that region (a genetic group with a demanded belief system on penalty of death) were the most important entities in the universe, given the God given right to rule over all other people. The foundation of that book was called "The Law," and it was written by those Jewish Elites. (If you dig into it, the legacy of that group still writes, or at least controls all the laws we have today for the most part). Not counting that final addendum, those statements are without controversy.
Other addendums to those statements do have controversy. The purpose of that writing is hugely controversial. Huge swaths of people have been made to believe that anyone who thinks that "The Word" is "controversial" is evil, or at least "fundamentally wrong." I suggest there is good evidence and debate to the contrary. Indeed, I think (or at least hope) that an appreciation of the evidence of how that book came to be (and some of the content within in it) is one of the functions of the GA.
The current Matrix (common beliefs and institutions) was created mostly by Elite Jews (or their minions). For those that appreciate it, many here think that Matrix was created somewhere around the late 19th or early 20th centuries. Some think it was created earlier (17th, or 16th e.g.). I suggest the framework was actually created (in the current Israel region) around the 5th to 3rd centuries BC, and exported into Rome (and thus the rest of the world) after the fall of the 2nd Temple (1st century AD), but the same intentions and methodologies of that group may have started even earlier (13th BC e.g.).
I agree with both
Except the will of the individual.
Beginning AND End of Story (and all the middle too, if we can remember the Truth that most have been encouraged to forget)..
It's that whole "Natural Law" thing biting corporations ("fictional entities") and their laws ("legal fictions") in their collective asses.
The will of which individual supersedes the Constitution?
By Natural Law, all of them.
The concept of "will" intrinsically includes freedom, AKA the only will that exists is "free will." All individuals have free will by Natural Law.
From the DOI:
The people who created the Constitution fully understood that all individuals are only beholden to (limited by) Natural Laws. Any government that attempts to subvert those Natural Laws, or call itself the "Sovereign" of the individual is fraudulent.
"Sovereign" means "Ultimate Authority." All individuals are the Ultimate Authority of their Jurisdiction. A group of people (such as a government) is, if they work in concert, only working within the Jurisdiction of the sum of the people acting in concert. The Jurisdiction becomes "larger" only in the sense that each individual is acting in concert, and the resultant Jurisdiction is acting as the summation of the individual Jurisdictions. However, anyone who dissents from the group is never under the groups Jurisdiction by their free will.
So what is an individuals Jurisdiction? That's a somewhat complicated question (outside of this response), but included in that Jurisdiction is choice. No other entity can choose for you. Not ever. All they can do is attempt to limit their choices to the point that an individual feels that they have no other choice. The truth is, there is always choice until you are dead (and possibly after, who knows).
The concept of a government as being "Sovereign" is itself fraudulent, at least by the way we use it. We think of a "government" as being an entity of its own. But that is a fiction (specifically, a "legal fiction" AKA it only exists within the framework of "law," which is itself a fictional framework expecting only the Natural Laws themselves). In other words, a government is not an entity by Natural Law, it only "exists" within the definition of a specific fictional system of laws, AKA a corporation ("an entity made corporeal through fiction").
A government itself is purely fictional. It can't interreact with the universe. It can't do anything. It doesn't actually exist. People can do things, make choices, interact with the universe, because they are real entities. A bunch of people calling itself a "government" is just a bunch of individuals, acting in concert (sometimes). As we do it, that group pretends that it is a single entity. That pretense causes all sorts of fuckery.
So when a bunch of people try to subvert the will of another, it's just a bunch of people doing that. They may try to do that, calling themselves a single entity through the fiction of law, but if you believe it, you are allowing yourself to believe their fraud. If they build a system (such as a government AKA fictional legal framework) that uses propaganda to falsely create those beliefs, subverting Natural Law, then all that has happened is that specific group of individuals (pretty much all of whom are Aristocrats) has done, is commit systemic fraud.
As just one piece of evidence of that systemic fraud:
The person who (ostensibly) wrote that line in the DOI (Jefferson), spent his entire life enriching himself (a megamillionaire) on the backs of an entire village's worth of black Slaves and white Indentured Servants, most of whom (statistically) never worked out their indenture.
That same person insisted that the only people who should be allowed to vote (participate in the laws of the land and make their social choices) must be land owners (exactly the same as the Landed Aristocrats of England). Those land owners were themselves the children of the Aristocracy (mostly the "seventh sons" of the English and Dutch Aristocracies), consisting of less than 3% of the population. Women weren't considered "equal" about ANYTHING AT ALL. In many ways, they were worth even less than black slaves as far as that "free" government and laws were considered.
There are so many other issues in the government, the DOI, and the Constitution. SO MANY MORE. We ignore the issues if we are aware of them at all. If we are aware of them, they are shoved under the rug and told, through the propaganda systems, "they were a product of the times." The more you dig, the more you find who really created those systems, why they created them, and how they were setting up the system we call (or at least that I call) The Matrix.
Holy Cod this should be its own post man
But it seems to suggest each individual is sovereign. I like that and distrust all government, all the time.
But try finding even one video where a sovereign citizen comes out on top in court or at a traffic stop. Doesn't exist from what I can tell, though I'm admittedly not the best at digging. All vids and all articles instead trash the "sov cit" as an absolute colossal moron, completely out of touch with reality, who believes laws do not apply to him and loses every single time.
I know there are people who similarly have somehow gotten their social security number changed to 999-99-9999, received a refund of the prior three years' income tax, and never have to file or pay taxes again. I don't have anywhere near the time, money, or knowledge to make that happen, but good for them!
There is no sovereignty in a corporate court. In a constitutional court there would be. Did you know without a promise to appear contract the court cannot proceed in your case and 72 hiurs is the limit in their abilitynto hold you? A lawyer gets power of attorney and immediately contracts you through a notice of appearance contract. The lawyer waives your rights. Its a scam.
Logically speaking (using the process of logic), Sovereignty is a direct consequence of free will. Indeed, they are extremely close concepts. Any "Sovereign" other than the Individual is fakery because in order to be a Sovereign, you have to actually exist, and/or claim subservience to all other individuals. But governments don't actually exist, and most modern governments proclaim the individuals are "free" while also calling itself (and only itself) Sovereign while enforcing that claim without mercy.
In order to understand that ALL Individuals are Sovereign, you have to understand what an individual's Jurisdiction is. Like I said, that's a little bit complicated, but the simple answer is, the Individuals Jurisdiction is equated with their Inalienable Rights. Of importance, those Rights include the right to defend your Life, Liberty, and Property.
"Property" was a huge part of the writings of John Locke, the inspirer of the DOI, yet it was not included on the DOI (by Jefferson and his Banker cohorts) explicitly for purposes of fuckery. By deleting that essential word, it allowed the resultant government to call itself a Sovereign, and legally it makes claims on ALL property in the United States, including all claims of property by all individuals. The government supersedes (legally, but falsely) any claims of property using the Constitution (and subsequent laws). Of course that is a violation of Natural Law, but it is how the legal system was designed.
The US governments fundamental claims on property (and indeed life and liberty, though that's a different issue) is one of the reasons (not the only reason) why most "Sovereign Citizens" often lose court cases (not all as far as I can find, but often). All property claims are built into the Constitution.
Of course what a "Sovereign Citizen" is, is itself a particular type of fuckery (in a way, the words "Sovereign" and "Citizen" are opposites, at least in the way we do it). That is one reason why the concept of a "Sovereign Citizen" is doomed to fail. You can't legally state that we are be both "Sovereign" and "Citizen" of our particular brand of government. Worse, all (or at least some, possibly all) "Sovereign Citizen" exposes are carefully created by government propaganda agents (CIA, DOD, IRS, Treasury, etc.) to make them look like idiots, so that no one appreciates that inborn fundamental knowledge, that they are actually Sovereign. These agents pick and choose which to show, like they do with everything else, to create the beliefs they want people to adopt.
It's a scam man. It was made a scam from the beginning. It will continue to be the same scam until people realize who they are. I think this is the actual purpose of the Great Awakening. If it is not, I suggest it's just the new fuckery, same as the old fuckery.
Also agree with this. Maybe i misunderstood the first post. We think more alike than it appeared.
10th amendment. These are not the only rights the state and the people reserve to themselves.
I had not read this comme t until after I posted. We do fully agree on "except the will of the people."
The word supreme is meaningless under the treaty b.s.
Saw it late, but never too late to sticky a dig.
Ty!
I don't agree that anything supersedes federal law or the Constitution of the United States upon which it is based
Don't Tread On Me isn't just a cool slogan
Amen. It is only the despots that cede our authority illegally.
All of them that are currently enacted and under an enforecement agreement of any sort need to be reviewed and ultimately done away with (hopefully). At a minimum they need to be rewritten. New, more modern treaties can be put in place that better reflect today's political, religious, and cultural environments. Every treaty we have with each individual nation needs to be put under the spotlight, extensively researched and reviewed, and readdressed as to whether or not they truly benefit us as a society, especially since we're used as the world's major arms supplier and policing force. It's high past the time this nation starts considering whether or not the UN, NATO, and other such organizations are truly worth our time, money, effort, and blood.
Most GWOT vets I know, and I know a lot across multiple commands and across all branches, including the USCG, happen to agree with me on this, too. When I say a lot, I mean I know hundreds loosely by name or reputation, and more personally know close to a hundred that I serv d with directly across multpile commands during two enlistments, as both an Aviation Ordanceman and then as an EOD Tech.
This is something that the military has long been discussing internally, but the upper echelon leadership won't openly admit, especially at the Major Command and Flag and General officer/Admiralty ranks because this discussion led to questionable deaths (Patton's and others), questionable loss of command authority, questionable "suicides," and questionable fo ced retirements (like McArthur's as well as others). I'm talking about internal discussions going back 30+ yrs, to at least Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm and probably a lot earlier than that, since I remember having diacussiins like this with Vietnam era Vets and guys that were involved with Panama and Desert Shield/Desert Storm when I was a young, newly minted Sailor in 1995.
I can't tell you how many operations I was involved in that were under questionable treaty authority for the U.S. to be involved with because there's so many, they all kind of just roll up into each other.
I look at this list and see:
“Weren’t we warned about ‘foreign entanglements’?”
Constitution Article VI (clause 2):
"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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So, it is clear ("...any thing in the Constitution...to the contrary notwithstanding"...) that enforcement of treaties can supersede the provisions of the Constitution. So saith the Constitution.
Not quite. Observe this linguistic grouping:
You seem to have read it this way:
STATE Constitutions and Laws do not supersede U.S. Treaties, as initially noted.
The constitutional lack of several clarifying commas is always confusing.
Ah. Great insight. Much preferable. I think this is the source of some false implications over recent history. Thanks. (I was never happy with the way I read it, but did not see the other reading.)
Yeah, I had similar issues with the 2nd amendment for years, but once I figured it out, so many lights came on!
Unfortunately, there are many popular misinterpretations of the US Constitution that occur like this throughout the document.
You missed "under the authority of the united states" that authority is derived from the Constitution. The constitution does not control us it controls the government. Big difference on where that authority is derived and who is subjected to it. We the people are not under the Constitution, the constitution is literally the will of the people. Its the individual, the state then the federal gov. So any treaty made only puts the state and the feds under its authority. Its the tenth amendment that seperates the three distinctly. They love it when we believe we are the subjects of control under the Constitution. That thinking is a deceptive lie. My only ruler is God. Period.
I agree with the basics of your thinking. No treaty should be used as a back door to amend the Constitution, which has been a form of bad behavior for decades.
A treaty can supercede a state law all it wants under the corp. But not the constitution. The supreme law of the land means just that.
In the words of the great rush limbaugh I refuse to participate!!!!!
Easier said than done when talking about an international treaty. Even the states get to participate.
It’s why I’m suggesting that we figure out how to recommend the treaty be reviewed for revocation.
another reason why your post is important just came to mind, most other countries of the world have adopted the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” and in human rights circles most the world wonders why is it that the United States is the only major country that hasn’t adopted it? don’t we care about children?”!!!
It turns out that Cynthia Cohen Price helped draft the convention on the right of the child, and it is her contention that the treaty was intended to include the abolishment of corporal punishment for children, i.e. spanking.
So the US Senate ratified the convention on the rights of the child, even though it doesn’t spell out that spanking would be banned and states without the implement this, it clearly was Cynthia Cohen’s intention that wording in this treaty meant to her that spanking would be banned, and that states would have to carry out this band.
Such implementation with strongly increase the social services forces in many states and lead to the taking of children from many families.
Could have added a reservation understanding and memorandum (RUDs) to the treaty at the Senate were to ratify the treaty and indicate that the USA objects to any language in the treaty that would be lent towards the meaning or intent of banning spanking when it comes to family discipline of children?
Yes, the Senate could have added a RUD to the treaty and ratified the treaty, but why give left us woke judges the opportunity to go all at it anyways, knowing how they find ways around everything. Then there’s the woke judges who would rule that children according to their ages have rights to violent and lascivious tv, movies and “music” - taking guidance away from parents.
yes the USA cares about children, that’s why there is GAW, Q, MAGA, MAHA when President Trump, with Joe Lange “ the plan to save the world.”
If they gad any real power in treaties against the people we would have all our gun rights superceded by treaty 100 years ago. Even they know better.
that’s a good point! they would have banned so many rifles and other things in treaties if they actually could get around the Bill f Rights
Get rid of them all. Start over.