Posts Tagged ‘original intent’

The Biden Regime is planning on surrendering US sovereignty to the World Health Organization

Posted: February 23, 2023 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

The latest move by the Biden Regime rises to the level of treason because they are planning on implementing a treaty that would surrender the sovereignty of the United States over to World Health Organization.  To accomplish this they are doing an end run around the Constitution of the United States because they are implementing the treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate. 

Here is the clause of the treaty that is designed to supposedly grant the United States, and all other nations, the authority to circumnavigate legislative approval.

The WHO CA+ may be applied provisionally, in whole or in part, by a signatory and/or Party that consents to its provisional application by so notifying the Depositary in writing at the time of signature of the instrument, or signature or deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or accession. Such provisional application shall become effective from the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The despicable and corrupt process is documented in this article from The Epoch Times.

“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature,” Boyle said. In addition, “the Biden administration will take the position that this is an international executive agreement that the president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals, and health officials.”

There are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that may support the Biden administration’s position. They include State of Missouri v. Holland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that treaties supersede state laws, while other decisions, such as United States v. Belmont, ruled that executive agreements without Senate consent can be legally binding, with the force of treaties.

According to the zero draft, signatories would agree to “strengthen the capacity and performance of national regulatory authorities and increase the harmonization of regulatory requirements at the international and regional level.” They will also implement a “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach at the national level” that will include national governments, local governments, and private companies.

The author of the article is suffering from several common and dangerous delusions.  The first is the belief that the Supreme Court issues rulings that are in any way based on the Constitution of the United States.  Another is the belief that the Supreme Court has the authority to grant a branch of the federal government the power to completely disregard the plain text of the Constitution.  The final delusion is the belief that only the Supreme Court has the authority to declare that a given law or treaty violates the Constitution.

Here is a summary of The United States v. Belmont ruling.

 301 U.S. 324 (1937), was a dispute between the federal executive branch and the State of New York over property rights to a deposit from a former Russian corporation with August Belmont & Company, a private New York City banking firm. Belmont established executive predominance over state laws and constitutions in the sphere of foreign policy, and allocated the constitutional power for initiating executive agreements solely to the president of the United States.[

By examining the actual text of Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2, it becomes obvious that the Supreme Court made a grave constitutional error with that ruling.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur

From the text of the Supremacy Clause, which is  Article 6 Section 2, you can see that only treaties passed through the formal constitutional process are the law of the land.  Agreements signed by just the president are not listed therefore they are not the law of the land.

 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.

In Federalist Paper 75 Alexander Hamilton discusses the treaty making power granted in the Constitution.  No president has the constitutional authority to enter into any form of treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate.

The president is to have power “by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.” Though this provision has been assailed on different grounds, with no small degree of vehemence, I scruple not to declare my firm persuasion, that it is one of the best digested and most unexceptionable parts of the plan. One ground of objection is, the trite topic of the intermixture of powers; some contending that the president ought alone to possess the power of making treaties; and others, that it ought to have been exclusively deposited in the senate. Another source of objection is derived from the small number of persons by whom a treaty may be made: Of those who espouse this objection, a part are of opinion that the house of representatives ought to have been associated in the business, while another part seem to think that nothing more was necessary than to have substituted two-thirds of all the members of the senate to two-thirds of the members present. As I flatter myself the observations made in a preceding number, upon this part of the plan, must have sufficed to place it to a discerning eye in a very favourable light, I shall here content myself with offering only some supplementary remarks, principally with a view to the objections which have been just stated.

With regard to the intermixture of powers, I shall rely upon the explanations already given, in other places of the true sense of the rule, upon which that objection is founded; and shall take it for granted, as an inference from them, that the union of the executive with the senate, in the article of treaties, is no infringement of that rule. I venture to add that the particular nature of the power of making treaties indicates a peculiar propriety in that union. Though several writers on the subject of government place that power in the class of executive authorities, yet this is evidently an arbitrary disposition: For if we attend carefully to its operation, it will be found to partake more of the legislative than of the executive character, though it does not seem strictly to fall within the definition of either of them. The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or in other words to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society. While the execution of the laws and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defence, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate. The power of making treaties is plainly neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones, and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong properly neither to the legislative nor to the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed, as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the executive as the most fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a part of the legislative body in the office of making them.

An un-elective despotism is exactly the government we have now

Posted: January 12, 2023 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

As I was scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed I came across the following fragment of a quote from Thomas Jefferson, “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.”  It appeared to me that Jefferson accurately predicted a couple hundred years into the future because his quote almost perfectly sunned up conditions existing here in the United States now.  The only discrepancy in the quote is the fact that the Biden regime is unelected, thanks to the theft of the 2016 presidential election from Trump.

Despotism is one of those words I’ve encountered over and over again and was 99 percent sure I knew what it meant.  I looked it up to be sure.  Here is a definition of despotism from Google.  It corresponds with my understanding of the term.

A country or political system where the ruler holds absolute power.  The exercise of absolute power, especially in a cruel an oppressive way.

I looked up the original source of the quote and found it here, Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia written in 1784.

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. 

The Constitution properly distributed government power between three federal branches, with proper checks and balances.  Also government power was distributed between the states and the federal government.

Progressives began transforming the United States from a constitutional republic into a full-fledged despotism over a hundred years ago by concentrating the majority of all government power into an enormously overblown executive branch of the federal government. The United States is now completely a despotism.

In his farewell address George Washington also warned that the concentration of power would lead to despotism.

The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

The Biden Regime is once again trampling on the First Amendment

Posted: January 5, 2023 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

This is a topic I’ve covered far too often since Joe Biden was installed in the White House two years ago.  My defense is that I am only chronicling a long train of abuses committed by Joe Biden and his fellow progressives.  They have far too frequently obliterated the First Amendment protections guaranteed to each and every American.

The latest installment in this horror show of abuses is aimed at doctors and other members of the medical profession.  Joe Biden issued an executive order forcing all members of the medical profession to perform abortions, sterilizations, and sex change operations, even if these operations violate the religious beliefs of the medical workers

The Biden administration will withdraw a Trump administration rule that would have allowed any healthcare worker to refuse to participate in abortions, sterilizations, or sex-change operations for reasons of conscience.

Healthcare workers will still be allowed to opt out of abortions and sterilizations unless doing so would cause “undue hardship to their employer, ” the San Francisco Chronicle notes, under an existing 1973 federal law.

And a recent judicial order barring a Biden administration mandate on transgender surgeries in a Catholic hospital remains in effect (even though the judge confined the effect of the ruling to the parties in the case).

However, they would not be able to opt out at will, and might not be able to apply that law to so-called “gender-affirming care,” the administration’s euphemism for surgery or drugs that mimic opposite sex characteristics and that fall short of formal sterilization (such as the removal of breasts as a treatment of gender dysphoria).

The federal government forcing anyone to violate their religious beliefs is a direct violation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.  The original 1973 law, which is now back in effect thanks to Biden’s executive order, did not go far enough because there is no “undue hardship” exception to the First Amendment.

As you can see from this next quote, President Trump understood the First Amendment far better than progressives because his rule was instep with the original understanding of the Free Exercise od Religion Clause.

The Trump-era rule, as described in 2018 in the Federal Register, aimed ” to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal conscience and anti-discrimination laws” within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): “The final rule also encourages the recipients of HHS funds to provide notice to individuals and entities about their right to be free from coercion or discrimination on account of religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The right of conscience is absolutely integral the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.  That is not just my opinion. It is a well-established fact, as you can see from this quote from the transcript of the debates in the House of Representatives when the Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights were debated.  The designation for that particular session is 5, 17 , 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:729–31, 755, 76

Mr. [Daniel] Carroll.–As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the Government than almost any other amendment he had heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the Constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Four fundamental constitutional truths most Americans are no longer aware of

Posted: December 15, 2022 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

It has been many decades since actual civics was taught is schools here in the United States.  Instead, school students were taught social studies, which is nothing more than a watered-down Marxist indoctrination scheme.  This was done to make Americans far more malleable.  If Americans are ignorant about the true nature of the United States Constitution, it is far easier to strip away their rights, and we are way less likely to stand up against a tyrannical government.  Today American students are taught a more insidious and despicable form of indoctrination.

Here are four Constitutional truths that have been erased so completely from school curriculums that even many conservatives are confused about.

1. Just because some individuals may “abuse” a right, it is absolutely wrong to strip that right away from everyone else.

At all levels, individuals are constantly prevented from doing things that they have every right to do.  The rational for this trampling of everyone’s rights is the claim that certain individuals may, or may not, do something wrong, or harmful, with a particular right.  That is a form of collective guilt.

Our constitutional system is founded on individual guilt.  Collective guilt goes against everything our nation was founded on.  Only those individuals who are guilty of a particular crime may be punished for that crime, and only after they have been found guilty in a court of law.

2. The Constitution only restrains the federal government and states.

The US Constitution does not reach down to individuals.  It is a document that only binds the hands of the federal government.  The Constitution also prevents the states from squabbling with each other.  Progressives have perverted the Constitution into an instrument that grants the federal government the authority to trample on the rights of every individual.

3. Supreme Court Precedents are nothing more that the opinions of Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Precedents are treated as the supreme lay of the land.  They have been elevated above the plain text and meaning of the Constitution itself.  According to the Constitution, Supreme Court Precedents have absolutely no legal merit or weight at all because they are not mentioned in the Supremacy Clause, which is is Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution. 

4. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

Probably twenty times a day I hear or read some talking head state that the United States is a Democracy. That is absolutely false.  The Framers of the United States Constitution hated and feared the form of government known as a Democracy.   They knew that Democracies are nothing more than mob rule where the rights of individuals and minorities are trampled on by the majority.

In a Democracy the acts of Parliament are the Supreme Law of the land.  In our Constitutional Republic the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.  The rights and property of individuals are protected by the Constitution.

The Federal Government is divided into three distinct branches, which check and balance each other.  The Prime Minister and courts of Democracies are weak offshoots of Parliament.

Democracies are top down nations where provinces are just minor administrative districts.  The States here in the United States were meant to be mostly sovereign nations, tied together by a weak and limited federal government.

In a Democracy, Parliament wields the ultimate political authority.  In our constitutional republic, all political power rests in we the people.

Older Entries
Newer Entries