 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Email Paranoia - Is the U.N. Charter Equal to the Constitution? |
||
|
A member in Reno, NV sent us an email that's been bouncing around the net that claims the U.N. Charter is equal to the Constitution. The email looks like this: Have you ever read the hundreds of treaties our Presidents and Senate have made with other nations? Did you know that the United Nations is a Treaty Agreement and as a signatory nation the United States is bound by its dictates and that it is part of our Constitution? Yes, when any elected official takes his/her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, that oath includes treaties! Let me quote it for you. ARTICLE V1, paragraph 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 OF LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." This email is false, for now, but it is possible the Supreme Court could change how it interprets the Constitution and make this issue a legitimate concern. Let's look at the law to see why the email is false. Some members of Congress in the 1950s understood that America's freedom came from its Judeo-Christian founding principles. Remember, these Congresses add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" to our paper currency. They understood that other nations did not have the same ideas about right and wrong as the United States. Since the Constitution reflects America's Judeo-Christian ideas of right and wrong, a foreign treaty might allow laws to be made that violated these ideas, if treaties were construed to be equal to the Constitution. The hierarchy of the Constitution, federal laws and treaties, and state laws is stated explicitly in the Constitution. This hierarchy is stated in what is called the "Supremacy Clause," clause two of Article VI. This is the part of the Constitution that is quoted in the email above. It is not part of the President's Oath of Office which appears in Article II, Section 1, clause four. The author of the email did not correctly understand what the Supremacy Clause means. The clause says that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties are superior to state constitutions and laws. On this basis, the Supreme Court may strike down a state law or state constitutional provision that violates the U.S. Constitution. (This is not a means to apply all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, of course, because parts of the Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government.) Under the Supremacy Clause, federal laws must be made "pursuant to" the Constitution, which is how the Supreme Court may strike down federal laws that are unconstitutional. (Although the Constitution does not give the court the power of judicial review. Chief Justice Marshall simply took that power in Marbury v. Madison.) The relationship of treaties to the Constitution IS ambiguous on the plain language of the Supremacy Clause, because treaties are not required to be made "pursuant to" the Constitution. Realizing that problem, a Senator in the 50s named Bricker proposed amending the Constitution. The Senate Judiciary Committee considered the proposal and issued the following proposed amendment language: "A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect." The amendment also required Congress to pass an enabling law for any treaty before it could take effect. In 1954, the Senate voted on the proposal, as amended by Senator George of Georgia to apply to "A provision of a treaty or other international agreement...." The Senate just missed having the two-thirds majority needed to pass the Amendment. It failed 60 to 31. The "Bricker Debate" continued, but the Supreme Court finally settled the issue in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert. 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Writing for a plurality of justices, Justice Hugo Black said, "The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." Justice Black examined the history of the Supremacy Clause and said it was "clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in 'pursuance' of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation [would] remain in effect." Justice Black recognized that while the plain language of the Constitution may be ambiguous, the design of our Constitutional government is not. He wrote: "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire Constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing Constitutional provisions." Justice Black's remarks settled the interpretation of the Supremacy Clause. The Court has not altered this understanding in any more recent case. The problems is that, as a practical matter, the power to decide the meaning of constitutional restrictions must be given to some man or group of men. We give it to the Supreme Court. Although the court is supposed to be politically independent, again, as a practical matter, their decisions are likely to reflect the popular opinions of the time. In our day, we have lost the original understanding of almost all of the Constitution's provisions. The danger looms, therefore, that the Supreme Court may alter its interpretation of the Constitution to put the United States under the jurisdiction of foreign powers, with ideas of right and wrong that contradict our Judeo-Christian founding principles. The only way to prevent this from happening is to learn what those founding principles are, and how they create freedom and prosperity, then teach their meaning and value to others. The best way to start is by reading your Bible. |
|
|
|