On March 30th, Britain’s Financial Times had an article describing the complex web of current British laws that resulted from Britain’s being inside the European Union — a trading-bloc that morphed into a quasi «United States of Europe» political entity — laws which will now need to become replaced during the next few years as the UK leaves the EU. That article provides proof, if any more were needed, as to why America’s Founders, who wrote our Constitution, made it much more difficult for the U.S. government to join or participate in any «treaty», than to establish any merely regular U.S. law — one pertaining only to this country: they recognized that unlike a regular law, a treaty is incredibly difficult to un-do; it is virtually permanent. Recognizing this wisdom of America’s Founders will inevitably force into the open the fact, hidden since 1974, that the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress conspired together in 1974 for the U.S. to enter into treaties that blatantly contradict the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause.
This hits two major hot ongoing international issues: Brexit or Britain’s exit from the European Union, and America’s renegotiation of NAFTA and other ‘trade’ treaties that have been passed into law using ‘Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority’. All such treaties, it will here be shown, are blatantly unConstitutional, such that everything which has transpired on the part of the United States under those treaties (not only NAFTA) has been unConstitutional, and the only real question about those U.S. actions, and any U.S. participation in those treaties (the ones that were passed under ‘Fast Track’), is whether their unConstitutional nature causes them to be retroactively null and void, or instead only future applications of Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority are prohibited by the Constitution’s Treaty Clause.
* * *
Here’s how America’s government in 1974 got around the U.S. Constitution, and why its having done so is still secret, even today:
The Imperial President Richard Nixon introduced what nowadays is called «Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority», but was then called the Trade Act of 1974, so that a U.S. President would be able to sign into law a treaty, an international agreement, without meeting the Constitutional requirement for doing that, the Treaty Clause:
The President… shall have 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
As I pointed out in my lengthy article, «The Two Contending Visions of World Government», on the intent of the Founders when that provision (the Treaty Clause) was written by them into our Constitution, there was no question nor debate amongst them as to what the term «treaty» means: it meant any type of international agreement; or, as I quoted there from Alexander Hamilton:
As Alexander Hamilton wrote on 9 January 1796, defending the new Constitution, and especially its Treaty Clause: «I aver, that it was understood by all to be the intent of the provision [the Treaty Clause] to give to that power the most ample latitude to render it competent to all the stipulations, which the exigencies of National Affairs might require—competent to the making of Treaties of Alliance, Treaties of Commerce, Treaties of Peace and every other species of Convention usual among nations and competent in the course of its exercise to controul & bind the legislative power of Congress. And it was emphatically for this reason that it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two thirds of the Senate with the President being required to make a Treaty. I appeal for this with confidence».
What the Trade Act of 1974 did was to obliterate that two-thirds requirement when a treaty is a «trade agreement», and replace it by the standard 50%+1 requirement that applies for passing any regular (purely domestic) U.S. law. Nixon and his Congressional conspirators did this simply by using in the Trade Act of 1974 the two-word phrase «trade agreement» instead of the term «treaty», and the entire Act also doesn’t mention «trade treaty» but just assumes that a «trade agreement» is something other than a «treaty» — not a «treaty» of any sort. It was a stupid semantical trick, but was so ardently desired by the individuals who actually controlled the U.S. federal government, that their servants — Nixon and the majority of members in each of the two houses of the U.S. Congress — were able to do it (essentially ignoring the Constitution), and the scholars, who are supposed to teach about the Constitution, have been so afraid to call out this blatant Constitutional violation, now already for over 40 years.
For example, Michael J. Glennon, who had been Legal Counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the years shortly after the Act's passage (1977-1980), never called it out; but on 20 April 2015 — while the hot topic in Washington was whether or not to grant to U.S. President Barack Obama, Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, so as to ram though into law Obama’s (and the U.S. aristocracy’s) proposed sovereignty-destroying Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) — headlined in the New York Times, «The Treaty Clause Can’t Be Ignored», and he judiciously avoided even so much as just mentioning the TPP, or Fast Track, or even the Trade Act of 1974 (which was the crucial enabling-law for passing such «trade agreements»), and he focused his entire article on non-trade treaties, ones having to do with military instead of commercial relations, and therefore irrelevant to the legal issues at hand. His article was part of a three-way debate, and the other two participants — all three debaters, including Glennon, were legal scholars — those other two argued for the necessity of avoiding the Constitution’s Treaty Clause, and they also failed to so as much as mention the TPP, Fast Track, trade agreements, or the Trade Act of 1974 — all of the key subjects, and the core of the reason why the NYT was supposedly publishing this ‘debate’ — and they too focused instead on non-trade agreements. One of those two articles was «Global Leadership Requires Executive Agreement», and it just argued that «Wielding its minority veto power under Article II of the Constitution, which allows one-third plus one of its members to block accession to treaties, the Senate has rejected U.S. participation in a broad range of international regimes enjoying near-universal global support». None of the examples that it cited concerned trade-issues; so, even if the Senate had been wrong to fall short of the two-thirds rule on those non-trade treaties, Fast Track (which wasn’t even mentioned) was not involved, and provides no solution, nor is it even relevant. The other article was titled «Presidents Act on International Agreements Because the Senate Doesn’t», and likewise ignored Fast Track and trade treaties, etc., but simply proposed a new way of interpreting the Treaty Clause so as to, perhaps (the author was hoping), enable some proposed treaties (all non-trade-related) to pass which the author said ought to have been approved by two-thirds of the Senate. In other words: all three of the ‘debating’ legal scholars entirely avoided the actual and very hot issue (the still unmentionable issue): the (un)Constitutionality of Fast Track.
The real beneficiaries of these types of ‘trade agreements’ is, above all, U.S.-based international corporations; and, secondarily, the subordinate ‘allied’ foreign aristocracies; all at the expense of the publics everywhere, and of democracy and even national sovereignty, in all of the participating nations.
In my 21 March 2016 article «NAFTA and Obama’s Proposed ‘Trade’ Deals Are UnConstitutional» I presented my proposed U.S. Supreme Court argument to nullify the Trade Act of 1974. The entire question has never come before any U.S. court, but how much longer will this corrupt nation need to wait before it finally does?
Anyone who wishes to probe deeper down into this rabbit-hole will find, in the links within my articles on this subject, a good portion of the root-system for America’s current rot — poisoned roots, since the end of World War II, increasingly, by America’s ever-grasping aristocracy.