paid for by the Committee to Elect Linda S Brooks to the US Congress
paid for by the Committee to Elect Linda S Brooks to the US Congress
Written by Linda S Brooks
Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States.
Opinion of the Court given by Justice Holmes in Missouri v Holland (1920)
According to Holmes, a Treaty is between at least two Country’s not between the organic documents which has no hold over those of another country; in otherwords, it is presumed that the negotiator, who is the Head of State, is correctly operating according to their allegiance to the dictates of the organic document of their own country. In the US Constitution, for instance, Treaties can only be made by the Federal level and not the State. Moreover, must be approved or disapproved by the Senate once submission is made by the President with the understanding that the President has near absolute empowerment in the Foreign while at the same constrained by his Oath of Office. What we are examining here is the question at what point is either the Congress failing its duty or the Presidential Executive powers exceeding the intent and language of an original Treaty such that implimentation is in violation of the original intent or the law of the land.
Following WWII, the procedure for Treaty making in the US, aside from the stipulated procedure described in the Constitution, has incorporated a new instrument known as the Executive Agreement used to reinterpret a Treaty while in the Foreign field when situational problems occur in knowing what interpretation to put on it. This question surrounds a controversy on international agreements and liabilities that went from under two thousand (2000) by 1950 to as many as sixteen thousand (16,000) by 2006 occurring in a five year interval brought on by the use of the Executive Agreement. This arrangement ultimately produced a furor over the roles of the President to reinterpret and the Senates role to ratify with the consensus by the Court that interpretation, in either case, has to follow, first, the enumerated literal parameters written in the original text; secondly the discernible intent of the Treaty usually based on its language; and third, its compliance with the essence of the character of the US Constitution. Thus, the root of the dispute between the President and the Senate is the extrapolation that Presidents may make in interpreting the application of a Treaty during that period after ratification. Used to explain this are Missouri v Holland (1920); United States v Pink (1942); Goldwater v Carter (1979). [see note 1].
To this end, our purpose recognizes that bringing a conclusion to a Treaty requires team work and with the US two step procedure the wisdom of the founding fathers has proved to be enormously successful. Sometimes its not the case that the President has over ridden his authority or failed to properly think it through regarding a treaty negotiated in the field; rather its a situation where they don’t want to leave that negotiation with an agreement that has rejection on their lips. But secondly, the President is not to have sole right of interpretation that completely deviates from the original intent especially if the case is that the period of Treaty is long if not infinite.
The Versaille Treaty, for instance, thought brought closure to WWI to which President Wilson signed, though reluctantly, wasthe rejected by the Senate. The reason for this was that the Treaty was so punitive, especially considering the condition Germany was in at the close of WWI, that they felt and Wilson concurred that a second war would be unavoidable and Germany would be forced into the position to rise again to defend the right for the German people to exist. They felt so certain that a second war would develop that the US adopted an Isolationist posture trying to stay out of the fray that they knew would come and it did twenty-one years later: the Second World War was declared in1939 by Great Britain and France against Germany as it conquered Europe all the way to Poland. The only reason, and I will say this emphatically, that the US joined Europe in the second War against Germany was because of the holocaust of the European Jews; and know that Europe particularly France resented the US’ late arrival.
How can the details of the Versaille Treaty be explained: was it that the Europeans, considering the devastation, saw the arrogance of the Bizmarkian hegemony pretorianist German military that through Europe into a World War or was it their anger that a single assassination was blown out of proportion producing the Second World War. In either case, the Europeans wrote the Versaille Treaty full of anger and without reason and that’s what Wilson saw and told the Senate don’t ratify this unless you think its right. The US bowed out and without apologies; the First World War was a European War; not theirs. Or is there an alternate explanation where we can say that Europe had a point by knowing what Germany would do, if it could, and therefore, tried to bind Germany so tightly that a Second War could not occur. However, the US circumvented the Versaille providing Germany with the Brady Financial Aid Plan,which gave them the opportunity to arm up again; and indeed, Hitler’s campaign theme was to restore the glory of the German Empire. So between the US’ aid and the fact that Europe was in ruin and financially broke, though the Versaille Treaty prohibited Germany from rebuilding a military, Germany could not be stopped. Staling himself, pointed out that the Allies from the First World War were not imposing the mandate of Versaille Treaty. While the US was silent.
So which is correct, did Europe cut their noise off inspire of their face by the rigors of Versaille; or did the US interfere. The interesting thing, is that the US did the same thing for Japan in the Second World War but with a different outcome; they did not rearm nor seek to regain hegemony in the Pacific. Reflecting on the present day, China announced just recently that it wants to form its own NATO throughout the Pacific Rim and Eurasia in response to the Ukrainian Conflict where accusation of proxy War exists between the US hegemony and the Regional Eurasian hegemony which is Russia; if so, the World will have two global military’s and a standoff; hopefully. It should be considered in these thoughts, that Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine established in 1991, just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a Commonwealth of Independent States; moreover in ????? Russia and the Ukraine signed a Treaty of Friendship afterwhich Russian agreed to a twenty year lease of the Crimea. And finally, according to ???? The Ukraine had twenty million Russians living in it at this time; but where have the gone in today conflict?
I was listening to a news report on Streaming where they were interviewing a Russian teacher, she said that because of these relationships, Russia sees the invasion as an attempt to protect itself both in terms of a threat to Russia but also because the history of the Ukraine is melded with Russia. Why did the US, the EU and the UN interfere except that there own ambitions aspired to take neighboring territory to solve another of a string of Balkan problems. If so, the West is guilty of self-serving aspirations covering it up with propagandized news reports. Moreover, the US has involved themselves in this against a majority consensus of its own people and providing financial aid at the tune of approaching fifty million US dollars as the US economy rages with run away inflation and as its markets are pulling back by fifty percent.
So what Treaty comes forward in this analysis. Well there is a Treaty between the US and Russia on Nuclear Armament, but that seems to pass muster and is in order or at least was in order. What about the Treaty between the US and the UN? Bingo, that’ the one we want to look at. I have posted the 1980 UN Charter before so I won’t do that again but just deal with these few articles that are salient to this review. As the UN was created at the end of WWII, though originally it may have been created to address Third World countries and with Quasi Judicial powers; today, encompasses the entire world and their power in terms of judicial powers; moreover, any Treaty that a member State has with another country must register that Treaty with the UN and if not they may not invoke the Treaty amongst any organ of the UN’ and finally, the UN has a Trusteeship thru which territories can deposited including any territory taken by a member State. This is not exhaustive but sufficient for our purposes. It does state that member states must sign onto the Charter respective of “Constitutional processes (Article 110).” I don’t see anyway that the United States could have signed onto the UN Charter as it amended today legally without the consent of the people. If so, they would have conceded sovereignty which would not be able to be recognized for lack of legitimacy that only could have been provided by the people themselves; not the government. Now, do we not understand why the American people are being ignored regarding the US involvement and support of Ukraine? Its a UN issue and every member State is expected to fall in line behind the UN militarily, financially and supportively.
the UN recognizes a countries right to self-defense; but they do not allow a countries right to invade for any reason independent of their intent.
Politics and Other Anomalies by Linda S Brooks is registered as a Fla. LLC FEIN#88-2001600
🇺🇸2021 Politics and Other Anomalies Political Analysis Essays 🇺🇸Personally signed by Linda S Brooks—A pre-release gift to any supporter making a single donation equal to or greater than $500.
I also have for $100 donations the book Common Sense by Thomas Paine excellent small book that explains the logic that went into the US Constitution.