Obama Defies Supreme Court, Constitution To Sign Paris Treaty

Reuters reports:

The United States will sign the Paris Agreement on climate change this year regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision to put a chunk of President Barack Obama’s environmental action on hold, the U.S. climate envoy said on Tuesday.

PROBLEM…. Obama signing a treaty does NOT equate to “The United States” signing a treaty. As a matter of fact, it’s not even close.

Obama signing a treaty doesn’t make it binding upon the people of the United States.

First, a treaty is not even considered the Supreme Law of the Land UNLESS it is approved by 2/3 of the Senate.

Second, a treaty is not the Supreme Law of the Land, even if it is approved by 2/3 of the Senate, if it is not consistent with the Constitution. Read Article 6, section 2 of the Constitution:

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Treaties are only valid if they are made “under the authority of the United States.” That means that unless the treaty involves a power that is specifically delegated to the federal government, it is NOT a valid treaty. Listen to Thomas Jefferson:

By the general power to make treaties, the constitution must have intended to comprehend only those subjects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated… It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.

Since there is no specific delegation in the Constitution for the federal government to have power over the environment, that power is reserved to the States, consistent with the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

With these facts in mind, even if the president signs the Paris Treaty, and even if the Senate approves, the treaty is NOT binding on the people or the States because it is a violation of the Constitution and the powers reserved to the States.

The States and the People must say, “We Will Not Comply!”

Are Americans Putting Too Much Faith In The Supreme Court?

With the recent passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, America is truly bereaved of one of her greatest defenders of justice.

Justice Scalia was a historic jurist, an exceptional legal scholar, and a stalwart defender of the Constitution as it was written by our founders.

The “crisis” being spoken of now is who will the next Supreme Court Justice be–and if he isn’t nominated by a Republican, will that sabotage America as we know it?

Regardless of what party nominates the justices, this problem with the judiciary declaring evil to be good and good to be evil will not be remedied, adjudicated, or fixed in the courts. It is unfortunate, but I feel Americans have a great deal of evidence to support the notion that the courts are the traffickers of injustice and immorality in this nation. In my lifetime alone, America has experienced horrific consequences by its obeisance to Supreme Court opinions. For example:

  • Millions of Americans have been murdered, ripped limb from limb in the womb.
  • The American family unit has been assaulted by the perversion of homosexual marriage.
  • Students have been harassed and coerced into learning without prayer, singing without Christ, and extra curricular activities with no Bible.
  • Once penalized by government for an unlawful action, now Americans are being fined for the inaction of not having government-approved healthcare.

How do we end such an epidemic trend? The Bible queries, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”  

To start, Christians, constitutionalists, and so-called “conservatives” need to recognize there is no federal government solution to our nation’s malady. Rather, our solution is found in restoring our Biblical American view of government found right in the Organic Law of our country, the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration clearly recognizes there is a God; that our rights come from Him; and that civil government, as His servant (and ours), is limited to protecting our rights.

For the purpose of securing our rights, the Constitution grants lawmaking power only to Congress and NOT to the courts, not even the Supreme Court.

You see, Article One, Section One — the very first sentence of the Constitution — says this: “All legislative power herein granted is vested in a Congress…”

So, if all federal lawmaking power is in Congress, then how much is left over for the courts?

The answer, of course, is zero.

Under our Constitution, courts render opinions in cases and controversies that come before them; they do not make laws.

Scalia understood that the courts do not make laws and have absolutely no law-making power. Yet, through so-called “Judicial Supremacy,” the federal courts claim to be the lone and final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. So what is the justification for this subversion?  They claim the “Supremacy Clause,” found in Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution. But in reading this article, we find no mention of the Supreme or any federal court. We do find, however, that it is the Constitution itself that has supremacy.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively against this judicial tyranny. He stated in a letter to William Jarvis in 1820: “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

You see, the Constitutional authority of the courts is to apply the laws of Congress. But ask yourself this question: “How can the courts enforce a law that Congress hasn’t made?”


Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The Death Of Antonin Scalia: An Inestimable Loss For Constitutionalism

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death leaves the Supreme Court without one of its most courageous and colorful conservative legal minds.

First, he was a staunch defender of the separation of powers, which, like the American founders, Justice Scalia saw as a bulwark against government tyranny. It made no difference to Scalia which branch’s powers were being threatened by the encroachment of another branch. He relied upon the clear language of separation in the Constitution. The founders vested legislative power in Congress (Article I), executive power in the president (Article II), and judicial power in the Supreme Court (Article III). That unequivocal proclamation of separation is found in the first sentences of each article and Justice Scalia refused to allow it to be ignored.

Examples of Scalia’s unrelenting defense of the separation of powers are numerous. But, perhaps, the most erudite were his arguments against the Ethics in Government Act, dubbed the “independent counsel act” in the 1988 case of Morrison v. Olson. There, Scalia, the sole dissenter from the majority, maintained that by passing the independent counsel legislation Congress “does deprive the president of substantial control over the prosecutory functions performed by the independent counsel … and it does substantially affect the balance of power.” The dissent is typical of Scalia. Most of the five-part opinion would be required reading in an upper-level political science class. However, the acerbic thrusts that characterize his style inevitably appear. He says that sometimes efforts to claim power from another branch “come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing … But this wolf comes as a wolf.” In the end, Scalia stood upon what the founders put in the text of the Constitution: “I prefer to rely upon the judgment of the wise men who constructed our system, and of the people who approved it, and two centuries of history that have shown it to be sound.”

Secondly, Scalia was a defender of classical federalism—the recognition that certain powers were intended by the framers to remain with state governments and not be denied to the states by any branch of the federal government, especially the judiciary.

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, Scalia justifiably indicts his fellow justices in the majority (upholding a modified Roe v. Wade) with his usual directness. He reminds them that they have no business in the “abortion umpiring business” because the Constitutional question about “whether [abortion] is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States” should be answered simply: “I am sure it is not.” “We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.” Why is that? Scalia explains that though “profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue [prior to Roe] … that disagreement was being worked out at the state level.” Unfortunately, the court in deciding Roe v. Wade (and then in basically affirming Roe in Casey) has the effect of “banishing the issue from the political forum that give all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences.” Scalia summarizes in one telling sentence the arrogance of the court of which he is a part, arrogating power to itself well beyond the intent of the founders: “The Imperial Judiciary lives.”

The third feature of the jurisprudence of Scalia was his opposition to the judiciary minting new rights out of thin air, that is, “rights” not explicitly found in the Constitution. His dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges calls out the majority opinion which upholds same-sex unions. He laments that it is “lacking in even a thin veneer of law.” He maintains that the majority is engaged in a “judicial Putsch” that is a sudden overthrow of the rules which govern this area of law. He goes on to complain that the majority is “entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’s permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since … minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. … Louis Brandeis … Felix Frankfurter.” Stating his position in favor of respect for the states and against his own court’s “hubris,” he exclaimed: “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power, a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

His stances on the separation of powers, federalism, and judicially created “rights” were rooted in his opposition to the “flexibility” advocated by “living constitution” jurists. In the no-holds-barred style of the ebullient but brilliant judge, Justice Scalia summed it up for a Federalist Society gathering:  “[T]he argument of flexibility … goes something like this:  The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.”

Precisely so, your honor! Requiescat in pace.

See more at Vision and Values

San Francisco Federal Judge Who Rules For Government Censorship Should Be Impeached

If you wonder how much damage a Presidential putz like Barack Obama can do to the nation, you have only to look at the case of Federal District Judge William H. Orrick III of the Northern District of California in San Francisco. Orrick III was a 2013 Obama appointee.

This is also the clown who ruled against investigative reporting in the case of The National Abortion Federation versus the Center for Medical Progress by issuing a preliminary injunction barring the anti-abortion group from releasing undercover videos taken at annual conferences of the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick III ruled the Center’s First Amendment interest in releasing the videos was outweighed by the National Abortion Federation’s right to privacy, security and association.

Apparently, Federal Judges appointed by Obama are now allowed to reinterpret the First Amendment to the Constitution when hallowed causes are involved.

If the Center had been, say, the New York Times publishing, say, the Pentagon Papers, then presumably Orrick III would have been more lenient in his interpretation, given the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in that case.

Fortunately for most of us, Orrick is swinging the barn door shut after most of the thoroughbreds have escaped and many of the videos are all over the internet, which leaves us with a case of ‘who do you believe? The baby killers’ trade association or your lying eyes?’

Orrick said representatives for the Center for Medical Progress had used false identification and set up a phony corporation to gain access to meetings of the National Abortion Federation. Surreptitious videos taken at the meetings violated confidentiality agreements the officials had signed to gain access to the meetings, Orrick said. Those confidentiality agreements provided for injunctive relief in the event of a breach.

Of course, selling body parts of dead babies which were custom aborted to preserve the parts do NOT qualify for injunctive relief.

Orrick also disagreed that the Center had used widely accepted investigatory journalism techniques. The group’s projects “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions (at least with respect to the NAF materials) of criminal misconduct.”

The problem here is that CBS News just used the same techniques to look at lawyers who would set up money laundering operations, and nobody even went to the courthouse.

In the immortal words of Chief Justice John Roberts—with whom we occasionally disagree—the job of a Judge is to call “balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

Judge Orrick III is definitely in there pitching—from far left field—and that, more than anything, is why he’s wrong.

Constitutional Law 101 teaches a 1971 case called New York Times Co. v. United States, a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

Ironically, the New York Times had been enjoined by a federal judge pitching for the right from publishing further excerpts of the Pentagon Papers.

The Supremes—which tilted a little left back then—said that the First Amendment means exactly what it says.

Why Orrick III is choosing to re-litigate this issue while pitching for the left is beyond me.

If Roe v. Wade is settled law, surely the First Amendment and freedom of the press is also settled law.

Yet we still have a Judge on the bench who tilts so far to the left that he is willing to simply serve as the handmaiden to the baby-killing industry.

He can rail against the anti-abortion groups all he wants, but government censorship—of anything that happens to be true or even arguable—is going so far that it should put a Federal jurist in line for impeachment.

Obama Is Not A King, But Lindsey Graham Is A Court Jester

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham recently proposed a bill that is in clear violation of the Constitution.

His bill would give the President the power to fight ISIS “whenever, wherever, and however.” But the President is not a king; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress shall have the power “To declare war.” Congress and Congress alone may constitutionally declare war. The President has the power to direct and command troops after an official declaration of war, per Article 2, Section 2; but he does not have the power to declare war.

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy said: “This resolution is a total rewrite of the war powers clause of the United States Constitution. Let’s be clear about that. It is essentially a declaration of international martial law, a sweeping transfer of military power to the president that will allow him or her to send U.S. troops almost anywhere in the world for almost any reason with absolutely no limitations.”

One of the most devastating attacks on the checks and balances of our Constitution was when in 2002, Congress voted to give the President the power to declare war on Iraq. In fact, the last Constitutional war was World War II; the so called “wars” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and the Persian Gulf were simply Congress giving the President the authorization to invade countries without officially declaring war. These technically illegal “wars” caused the death of over 119,000 American citizens.

We certainly should have learned our lesson after 119,000 innocent lives have been lost in the Middle East and beyond. While I am no friend of ISIS, I cannot see our country crumble into a monarchy, with the President being able to order Americans to go and fight in violation of the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war, and even Congress must be hesitant to go into conflicts. Our leaders should take advice from the Scriptures, and “as far as it depends on us, live at peace with everyone.” Senator Graham’s bill takes us one step closer to tyranny.


Learn more about your Constitution with Mason Chandler and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.