Will the North American Union be
American Patriot's last stand?
Thursday, December 7, 2006
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.
Similarly, Members of Congress themselves must respect the Constitution as "the supreme Law of the Land," and are "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
|
No one who peruses even the Establishment's pet media, let alone alternative sources of information, can remain unaware of the political maneuvers now on-going in aid of creating a so-called "North American Union" composed of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Yet notwithstanding this publicity, conspicuous by its absence has been a detailed answer to the question: Exactly where in the Constitution lurks any power for the General Government, or the States, or both together, somehow to "merge" the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a single super-national entity?
To answer this question requires reversion to fundamental principles.
First, as its very title attests, the purpose of the Declaration of Independence
was to claim and to justify Americans' national independence. Not,
however, simply as a matter of fact, but also and especially as a
matter of law. The Declaration came into being when "it [became] necessary
for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected
them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the
separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God entitle them." And the Declaration asserted "That these United
Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES;
* * * and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power
to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,
and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of
right do." For Americans "to dissolve * * * political bonds" and "to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station
to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" were
not simply historical events with no moral or legal components, but
acts that invoked and relied upon the highest legal authority, and
entailed profound legal consequences.
Second, WE THE PEOPLE who composed the "Free and Independent States" then
entered into the Constitution, not to repudiate or relegate to the
dustbin of history either the fact of national independence that the
Declaration announced or the principles of law that the Declaration
embodied, but (as the Preamble to the Constitution states) in order
"to form a more perfect Union" amongst themselves. That is, to secure
the fact of independence and make the principles upon which it rested
even more effective in practice than they had been theretofore.
Third, the legitimacy of the Constitution depends upon the Declaration of
Independence; and therefore the Constitution's powers cannot contradict
the Declaration's principles. For, were the Declaration not an actual
law both prior in time and superior in authority to the Constitution,
and the source of WE THE PEOPLE'S authority to enact the Constitution,
the Constitution itself would not be valid. After all, before they
could enact their own laws, binding on anyone, including themselves,
Americans had to win legal independence from Great Britain. They secured
that independence only under the aegis of the Declaration. Therefore,
they could enact only such subsequent laws as were entirely consistent
with the principles the Declaration set forth.
Fourth, the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution in no way rejected the
sovereign status of "the several States" incorporated within the Constitution's
federal system. Rather, it modified that status only insofar as WE
THE PEOPLE, through the Constitution, explicitly limited some of the
powers of the States in ways favorable to the Union. (In particular,
see Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1 through 3, and Article VI, Clause
2.) And out of the limitations on the sovereignties of the States,
the Constitution created a sovereign status for the Union as a whole
among the nations of the world. (In particular, see Article I, Section
8, Clauses 3, 4, 11, 12, and 13; Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; Article
I, Section 10, Clauses 1 and 3; and Article II, Section 2, Clause
2.)
Thus, the Constitution was not a repudiation of national independence, but
a transferral of some of the powers of "Free and Independent States"
from the individual States to the "more perfect Union" of them all,
and thereby a perfection of national independence. For it enabled
all of the States together to "establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty" in ways more effective than any
of the States could have put into operation individually.
Fifth, although in theory wholly "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES" could merge
with foreign states, in practice under the Constitution this is not
possible. Perforce of the Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE have caused
the States to surrender their primordial ability to do so, and have
delegated no competence to the General Government in that particular.
(a) The most basic rule of constitutional interpretation is that the States
retain all of their original sovereign powers that the Constitution
does not take away from them. Conversely, the General Government can
exercise only those powers that the Constitution delegates to it.
And "[p]owers not granted are prohibited." United States v. Butler,
297 U.S 1, 68 (1936).
(b) The Constitution provides that"[n]ew
States may be admitted by the Congress" into this Union; but
no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction
of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two
or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures
of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. Thus, the Constitution withdraws from the
States the powers they originally enjoyed to divide or to consolidate
themselves solely on their own initiatives. And the Constitution denies
to the Union any power to split up or to merge the States, in whole
or in part, solely on its own initiative.
(c) The Constitution says nothing about the States' merging on their own
initiatives with foreign nations to form some new super-national entity.
As practical matter, however, any such merger would require some form
of legally binding agreement between at least one State, on the one
hand, and one foreign nation, on the other. And the Constitution does
provide that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, *
* * enter into any Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power."
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3.
Moreover, "any Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" aimed specifically
at creating a new super-national entity could not be constitutional.
For the States are required to treat the Constitution as "the supreme
Law of the Land". Article VI, Clause 2. And State officials "shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Article
VI, Clause 3. "[A]ny Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power"
to form a new super-national entity, however, would have to absolve
State officers from their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this
Constitution" as "the supreme Law of Land," because the new entity
would necessarily be subject to some law other than and to the exclusion
of the Constitution. But for State officials to enter into such an
"Agreement or Compact" would itself violate their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s],"
and therefore be illegal from its inception.
To be sure, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority
of the United States" become part of "the supreme Law of the Land."
Article VI, Clause 2. Arguably, a State's "Agreement or Compact *
* * with a foreign Power" is not a "Treat[y]." Even if it were, "a
treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in
violation of the Constitution." The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11
Wallace) 616, 620 (1871). And surely an "Agreement or Compact" of
less legal status than a "treaty" cannot do so, either. So no such
"Agreement or Compact" can absolve a State, or its officials, from
their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution." And
to the extent it purports to do so, it is unconstitutional, and therefore
cannot be given any legal effect by any State or any State officials.
That the Constitution allows Congress to give its "Consent" to a State's
"Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" does not change
this result. For Congress's "Consent" cannot enlarge Congress's own
constitutional powers, or diminish its constitutional disabilities.
The only power of Congress relevant to possible "merger" of foreign
nations with the United States is the power to admit new States to
the Union. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. The Constitution delegates
no power to Congress to license any State—let alone all of them—to
leave the Union and be incorporated into some other super-national
entity. And "[p]owers not granted are prohibited."
Furthermore, Congress cannot extend its "Consent" to a violation of the Constitution
by the States or their officials. So Congress cannot give its "Consent"
to any purported "Agreement or Compact" for a State to merge "with
a foreign Power," because that would amount to "Consent" for that
State to set aside the Constitution and for her officials to violate
their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Conitution."
Similarly, Members of Congress themselves must respect the Constitution as "the
supreme Law of the Land," and are "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution." Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3. So Congressmen
cannot possibly give "Consent" to any purported "Agreement or Compact"
for a State to merge "with a foreign Power," because that would contradict
"the supreme Law of Land" by enabling them to subject part or even
all of the United States to the laws of some new super-national entity,
to the exclusion of the Constitution.
(d) On its own initiative, Congress could "merge" Canada, Mexico, and
the United States by admitting Canada and Mexico as two or more new
States pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution
(quoted above). But that is not what is being proposed for the North
American Union. Under the plan now being stealthily put into operation,
Canada and Mexico are not to be incorporated as new States within
the United States, subject to her Constitution, but along with the
United States are to be restructured into some new Northern-Hemispheric
superstate subject to some supra-constitutional legal system. The
Constitution delegates no such power to Congress. And "[p]owers not
granted are prohibited."
(e) The President does have the "Power, by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur." Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. But this would hardly
serve for creating some new super-national entity from the United
States, Canada, and Mexico. "A treaty is, in its nature, a contract
between two nations," or "a compact between independent nations."
Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Peters) 253, 314 (1829); Head Money
Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884). Therefore, a mere "treaty" cannot
merge two or more independent nations into one, because that would
be to dissolve the independence of at least one of them.
Moreover, even if a "treaty" could in some sense "merge" the United States,
Canada, and Mexico, Congress always could override and nullify it
by subsequent legislation. "Congress by legislation, and so far as
the people and authorities of the United States are concerned, [can]
abrogate a treaty made between this country and another country which
has been negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate."
La Abra Silver Mining Co. V. United States, 175 U.S. 423, 460 (1899).
And if the "treaty" purported to deny Congress this constitutional
authority (or any other authority, for that matter), it would be unconstitutional.
For "a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it
be in violation of the Constitution." The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S.
(11 Wallace) 616, 620 (1871). So the purported "merger" would constitute,
not a true "union" at all, but at most some sort of loose association
for mutual cooperation, with inherent impermanence because of the
possibility of its dissolution by Congress at any time. Which, one
must presume, is not what the proponents of the North American Union
have in mind.
(f) It appears that the foundations of the North American Union are now
being poured out of various international trade deals, economic arrangements,
agreements among regulatory bureaucrats, and faits accomplis (such
as the superhighway being constructed from Mexico through the very
center of America's heartland, and eventually to continue into Canada),
all of them with "commercial" character (as befits a scheme designed
by, and intended to serve the special interests of, international
big business and high finance). Although these machinations are taking
place primarily among executive officials in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico, at some point the North American Union will need at least
colorable support from Congressional legislation. And Congress does
have the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Article I, Section
8, Clause 3.
The power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," however, self-evidently
presumes the permanent existences as independent nations of the entities
involved in the "Commerce." So any North American Union could never
be the result of "regulat[ing] Commerce with foreign Nations," because
a "merger" of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into one super-national
entity would destroy and thereafter render impossible "Commerce with
foreign Nations" between the United States and those two "foreign
Nations," which with respect to the United States would no longer
be "foreign Nations" at all. And if, pursuant to the "merger," Canada
and Mexico were not constitutionally transformed into States within
the United States, or somehow fancifully equated with "Indian Tribes,"
no rational basis could possibly exist for saying that the North American
Union was justified under the Commerce Power.
(g) Although the Constitution can be amended, it is difficult to imagine
how any amendment could provide for the "more perfect Union" to "merge"
into some other, super-national entity. After all, a new super-national
entity distict from the United States (that is, where Canada and Mexico
were not simply admitted as one or more new States) would have to
operate under a charter of government decidedly different from the
Constitution. So the putative "amendment" would actually have to supersede
the Constitution in its entirety, in the same way that the Constitution
superseded the Articles of Confederation.
Even if such an "amendment" could be drafted, it would nevertheless have
to satisfy the standards of the Declaration of Independence, because
the power of amendment is a constitutional power and therefore subject
to the selfsame principles of the "higher law" that governs all constitutional
powers. Among those principles are the following:
That
the positive laws of any government are always subject and subordinate
to the Natural Law—"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
That
all men are equally entitled to "certain unalienable Rights"—whether
or not that is convenient to public officials or special-interest
groups, domestic or foreign.
That
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed"—and therefore can never claim
any unjust powers whatsoever, or impose any powers "from the top down."
That
"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter and abolish it, and
to institute new Government"—"the People" being always morally,
politically, and legally superior to "any Form of Government."
And,
That
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce the[ People] under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security." For the fulfillment of which "right" and "duty" the
People must be organized, armed, and disciplined in the "well
regulated Militia" the Second Amendment declares to be "necessary
to the security of a free State."
The insurmountable practical problem for any "merger" of the United States,
Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union by means of a putative
"amendment" of the Constitution is that neither Canada nor Mexico
satisfies the standards of the Declaration of Independence, by a long
shot. And therefore no North American Union that simply incorporated
those two countries, fundamentally unchanged, could meet the Declaration's
standards, either.
(h) Therefore, the only way to create a North American Union that could
absorb Canada and Mexico without radically reforming their regimes
would be to repeal the Declaration of Independence, repudiate the
principles on which it stands, and replace them with some new set
of contradictory principles consistent with the way political business
is carried on in Canada and Mexico. This could not be accomplished
simply by an "amendment" of the Constitution, because the power of
amendment in Article V is to "propose Amendments to this Constitution,"
not amendments to or replacements for the Declaration of Independence.
Instead, it would be necessary to adopt a new Northern-Hemisperic
"Declaration of Interdependence" that reduced the United States morally,
as well as politically, to the level of Canada and Mexico.
Little
imagination is necessary to posit what the noxious principles of such
a "Declaration of Interdependence" would have to be:
"[T]he
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" would be replaced with purely
"positive law"—that is, "law" would become whatever the political
Establishment said it was, with no right of appeal to any "higher
law."
"[C]ertain
unalienable rights" would be replaced with entirely "alienable
rights"—that is, with no real "rights" at all, because such "rights"
as the Establishment permitted under its "laws" could be set aside
whenever it served the Establishment's purposes.
The
idea that "Governments * * * deriv[e] their just powers from the
consent of the governed" would be replaced by the claim that governments
determine their own powers, which common people must accept as
being "just."
"[T]he
Right of the People to alter and abolish [any Form of Government],
and to institute new Government," would be replaced with an unconditional
duty to obey "the authorities" in everything, no matter how tyrannous
they became. And,
The People's "right" and "duty" "to throw off [an abusive] Government"
would be abolished through pervasive "gun control" and other police-state
measures, leaving common Americans (and Canadians and Mexicans,
too) at the mercy of "the authorities," who could Waco-ize them
without fear of resistance.
Can the Establishment convince Americans to repudiate the principles of
the Declaration of Independence, and to substitute for them the grotesque
counter-principles of a Northern-Hemispheric totalitarian state? Probably
not, if the matter were openly and honestly presented in that way.
Which means that the matter will be presented in some other way. Most
likely, the Establishment's minions will simply skirt the question
entirely, claiming that some combination of "statutes," "treaties,"
"executive orders," and "executive agreements" will suffice to create
the North American Union.
In sum, NO constitutional grounds for a North American Union exist. Indeed,
the whole project is patently illegal. That fact, however, will prove
to be of merely theoretical significance unless WE THE PEOPLE oppose
the creation of a North American Union with every form of exposure,
denunciation, protest, obstruction, and resistance that the Constitution
permits. And as soon as possible. For all the evidence indicates that
the Establishment considers the North American Union a top priority,
its foundations at the least to be poured into place with the next
few years.
To prevail in the coming struggle to preserve America, however, patriots
must first overcome the centrifugal tendencies that have all too often
rendered them ineffective on other fronts by enabling the Establishment
successfully to concentrate its forces and to employ divide-and-conquer
tactics.
Revitalizing "the Militia of the several States" could provide the necessary focal
point for the political zeal, skills, and experiences of many patriotic
groups now engaged in isolated, mutually unsupportive activities.
Perhaps other projects could also serve the same unifying, directing,
and (most importantly) empowering purpose. In any event, the time
for patriots to stop working in isolation, and instead to engage in
coordinated, concerted action is as close at hand as it is short.
If America is not saved soon, there will soon be nothing left of her
to save.
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard:
A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has
practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme
Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases
leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,
Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America
v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on
the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors,
may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their
employment.
He has written numerous monographs
and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county.
His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of eight:
: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States
Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American
monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.
He is also the co-author (under
a nom de plume) of the political novel Cra$hmaker:
A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash
of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes.
His latest book is: "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary
"
He can be reached at:
13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
I,
