Thursday, October 31, 2013

Most important case ever - DOJ is Arguing to the Supreme Court - UN Treaties Trumps U.S. Constitution. Arguing against U.S. Sovereignty would essentially hand the U.S. over to the UN

We have entered very dangerous grounds.  The case the DOJ (Department of Justice) is arguing to the Supreme Court would in effect take away the Sovereignty of the United States and our laws.

The U.S. government is trying to argue that UN Treaties trumps and over rules the Constitution of the United States.

I want everyone to think about this.  It is very serious.  If the DOJ wins this case, the United States would essentially be a nation  under the rulings and laws of the UN.

This is not a joke and this is a back door forming the New World Order under the United Nations.

We would no longer have the rights to our local and state laws including the rights to Bear Arms.

Remember John Kerry signed the UN small arms treaty, which the Congress was against.  But he did it anyway.

We have people in the government that are giving away the country and every single right and law, we the U.S. citizens believe we live under.

Portion from article:

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

If the UN at any time wanted to abolish our 3 levels of government that could happen too.  We could immediately go into a complete dictatorship without a Congress.

I would hope the Supreme Court realizes they too could lose their jobs.  The Supreme legals decisions could become the 'World Courts' compared to our Supreme court.

For those that don't know.  The U.S. handed over our national parks to the UN already, though people do not know this.  They are considered UN Biospheres and World Heritage Centers. 

Our Sovereignty as a nation literally is in the Supreme Courts hands right this moment, with this administration arguing against our Sovereignty as a Nation and against our Constitution! 

Besides that Here is Obama's "behind the scenes working on gun control" solution. He shut down the last lead smelter manufacturing business in the U.S. Now the Small Arms treaty makes even more sense... all ammo controlled shipped from one country to another. All ammo will have to be made outside the U.S. now.

A case in front of the Supreme court in 1957 was  Reid v Covert where the Supreme Court first ruled against the Constitution in regards to a foreign treaty signed by the Senate.  But it was petitioned for a re-hearing and changed their ruling for the Constitution. 

I do not have full faith in the Supreme Court to rule for our Constitution at this time due to the direction this country has been headed for the past few decades.  If they always ruled for the Constitution, then we would have a dollar backed by Gold and the Federal Reserve would not exist.  


  1. Clearly the us government believes that the Constitution no longer exists and their plan for a global government is in the bag. Americans must take this treasonous government very seriously because this could be the most toxic thing they have come up with so far. Once the UN takes the reigns, 100% of your human rights are gone and you may all end up on the global chopping block.

  2. By that logic, George Bush jr, Dick Cheney, Hillary, John Kerry and Obama should all be convicted for starting wars of aggression per the Kellogg-Briand pact.

  3. Not to burst your bubbles or anything but thats how foreign treaties actually work. Granted, that they usually would need to be made in a way that they do not go against the constitution but international treaties do trump whatever is in place internally.

    Not that would matter as international law and treaties simply reflect current state of power balances and in a lot of cases have no real power to force decisions which it should not have as well. Its just a framework on how to conduct certain formalities and will be changed, overruled whenever somebody of sufficient power wanting to do something.

    But yeah, Constitution is trumped by international treaties.

    1. You're an idiot. The Federal govt can't enter into Treaties that are unconstitutional, therefore, the Treaty would be null and void and we would not have to obey.

    2. To the individual who somehow believes that treaty trumps Constitution, you have no idea what you're talking about.

      It has already been ruled that foreign treaty cannot supercede that which is already protected in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
      However if you have the Supreme Court justices in your pocket.....

  4. "administration arguing against our Sovereignty as a Nation and against our Constitution" isn't this treason?

  5. Every single UN treaty that I've read, states specifically that the treaty shall ONLY be enforceable to the extent that it is in parity with a country's constitution.
    Most of our government employees however, are traitors at best and are attempting to void the constitution by doing the bidding of their masters!

  6. If you look up the United Nations Conventions for the Rights of the Child(UNCRC) and the NOW IN HOUSE AND DUE TO BE VOTED ON!!! "Conventions for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" or the CRPD then you'll see that they're trying to do this very thing{2F19360B-F38B-4791-8235-213CC836EB9C}
    That's on the CRPD which is in the Senate as of last month.
    This is the organization which is fighting the UNCRC overall, of which CRPD is an offshoot of because those powers that be thought that if they can edge in looking good fighting for 'rights' for people with disabilities then the UNCRC woud be a shoe-in automatically because of how it's written. And it's true. They are so intimately tied together you CANNOT have one without the other because of how children or people are defined within the treaty(ies).

    I'm very surprised, Sherrie, that you have not written any major articles on the UNCRC yet. This sneaking-in of treaties from the UN isn't just happening on a presidential scale. It's happening with supposedly helpful things for our children. Which, I suppose they could be construed as helpful unless you think it's wrong for your child to have their own social worker they report to, who can come by your house to 'check you out' any time they wish, and your child can in general complain to them about anything concerning your parenting they disagree with which will lead to your child SUING you in court. The foster care system is about to explode. And that's precisely what they're after. More jobs, more money spent, more kids ripped out of their homes, and more dysfunctional families.

  7. Let's all understand something: nothing, zero, nada trumps the Constitution with regard to the fed govt. All you collectivists can stop drooling.

  8. Our sovereignty is NOT in the hands of the Supremes. It never has been. Understand this, when the States get good and tired of this nonsense they can call a meeting of the States to change the Fed structure any time they want. They can propose and the vote on amendments on their own accord. They are the creators, the feds are the created. This is key to understanding why we're different the every other nation in the world. The only way the feds can do anything more than what they are authorized to do is by violence, which will expose them for what they really are.

  9. This has to be watched because nothing is off limits to these demons. Look, if they can make you think an illegal gay Muslim phony negro is your president and wickedness acceptable by making gay unions a "marriage" through compassion and tolerance they can do ANYTHING to you! Including overriding the Constitution.

  10. Treaties have to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate in order for it to take effect. Even with Harry Reid in charge of a democratic controled Senate, I doubt he could get two thirds votes to ratify.
    Just stay on top of this issue and demand your State Senators vote against ratification.

    negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.