Log in



The UN Charter displaced the U S Constitution

Friday, March 30th, 2012 by

 

R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Freelance Investigative Science Reporter

becworks@gmail.com

 

NOTE:  The article below my message is "old news" at this point in time.  Yes, we heard about it, but there is more to the story that is unfolding.  In the "home of the brave and land of the ignorant", let me share the following fact about the REAL situation. 

FACT:  [QUOTE]  "In 1942, the State Department and CFR members collaborated to set up a new “supranational organization” to replace the League of Nations, based on Wilson’s internationalist ideas. 9  Secretary of State Cordell Hull (CFR) asked Communist Alger Hiss to assemble a group of fourteen other CFR members to draft the United Nations Charter (UN).10 The UN Charter displaced the U.S. Constitution with little response from the voters who were traumatized by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. U.S. Senators accepted the charter without even viewing a copy. They were not authorized to bind U.S. citizens, without their consent, to the conditions of the U.N. charter.11 Stalin would join the allies only if the U.S. would accept the UN. On April 12, 1952, Secretary Dulles would claim, “Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President.”

SOURCE:  "By Way of Deception, We Shall do War!"…by Deanna Spingola, 18 Sep 2010 [Full Disclosure]

FACT:  History does not tell citizens what the LEGAL record reveals. Men have argued that Secretary Dulles was not correct, based on historical information.  They are wrong.  Just look at what has happened.  REALITY is in front of your eyes.  This nation is not going back to the previous fairy-tale.

THINK:   Therefore, what is taught to the Public is a lie; what is on the Record is the truth.  In the recent discussion between Senator Sessions and Sec of DOD Panetta, there is a clever tap-dance of ideology via political arm wrestling that most citizens missed.  The Senator was talking "history"; Panetta was talking "legal."  The Senator knows very well that the Senate displaced the US Constitution with the UN Charter in the 1940s, but he must pretend that itdid not happen…the Public is not supposed to understand the details.  If you are an adult who pays taxes, then it is time for you to learn the truth.  It will not be in your history books, because they are written by the very perpetrators of these lies.  It is in the LEGAL records.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK: 
Google the article by Spingola –   "By Way of Deception, We Shall do War!"
Google the article "Who Controls the World" by Ray Sperring or go to www.cleanairandwater.net.       

The UN Charter displaced the U.S. Constitution Legal Coup

Coup D’etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial

Congressman Jones introduces bill that would subject Panetta & Obama to impeachment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic, have prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce a resolution that re-affirms such behavior as an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor” under the Constitution.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

In an effort to re-affirm the fact that “the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives.

The full text reads;

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Under the terms of Jones’ resolution, both Panetta and Obama would be subject to impeachment for abusing their power and violating the Constitution in disregarding the authority of Congress and placing a foreign power above its jurisdiction.

Despite the Pentagon’s efforts to claim that Panetta’s words were misinterpreted, the Obama administration itself has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations in relation to last year’s invasion of Libya, which was conducted without approval from Congress.

In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

In boldly asserting the authority of international powers over and above the legislative branch, Panetta and Obama are openly declaring that they no longer represent the American people and instead are water carriers for a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.

ADDED BY OLDDOG

03 29 12 De facto De jure Government

 

http://commonlawgrandjury.com/Misc/de-facto_de-jure.pdf

 

De facto. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done.

De facto government. A government de facto signifies one completely, through only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful government; Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625, Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677, See De Jure Austin, Jur. Lect. vi. p. 336. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.

De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.

De facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established". It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact". The term de facto as of governments was created after the Argentine Constitution referred to illegal governments (governing bodies which Argentina did not acknowledge as individual nations) as de facto governments. The term de facto may also be used when there is no relevant law or standard, but a common and well established practice that is considered the accepted norm

A de facto standard is a standard (formal or informal) that has achieved a dominant position, by tradition, enforcement, or market dominance. It has

not necessarily received formal approval by way of a standardization process, and may not be an official standard document.

For example: band-aid, kleenex, hi-liter, white-out, jeep, etc., are all product brand names used to describe the item in a general way.

De facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established". It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact". The term de facto as of governments was created after the Argentine Constitution referred to illegal governments (governing bodies which Argentina did not acknowledge as individual nations) as de facto governments. The term de facto may also be used when there is no relevant law or standard, but a common and well established practice that is considered the accepted norm.

De jure Government

De jure government. government de jure, but not de facto, is one deemed lawful, which has been supplanted; a government de jure and also de facto is one deemed lawful, which is present or established; a government de facto is one deemed unlawful, but which is present or established. Any established government, be it deemed lawful or not, is a government de facto. Austin, Jur. sec. vi. 336. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume I, page 768.

De Jure government

Of right; legitimate, lawful; by right and just title. In this sense contrary of de facto, (which see.) It may also be contrasted with de gratia, in which case it means “as a matter of right,” as de gratia means “by grace or favor.” Again it may be contrasted with de æquitate; here meaning “by law,” as the latter means “by equity.” See Government. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 481.

A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state. For example, a government that has been overthrown and has moved to another state will attain de jure status if other nations refuse to accept the legitimacy of the revolutionary government.

De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact".

The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in principle" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.

In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where for example the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude" may allow de facto practices to replace obsolete laws. On the other hand, practices may exist de jure and not be obeyed or observed by the people.

[Latin, In law.] Legitimate; lawful, as a Matter of Law. Having complied with all the requirements imposed by law. De jure is commonly paired with de facto, which means "in fact." In the course of ordinary events, the term de jure is superfluous. For example, in everyday discourse, when one speaks of a corporation or a government, the understood meaning is a de jure corporation or a de jure government. A de jure corporation is one that has completely fulfilled the statutory formalities imposed by state corporation law in order to be granted corporate existence. In comparison, a de facto corporation is one that has acted in Good Faith and would be an ordinary corporation but for failure to comply with some technical requirements.

A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state. For example, a government that has been overthrown and has moved to another state will attain de jure status if other nations refuse to accept the legitimacy of the revolutionary government. De jure Segregation refers to intentional actions by the state to enforce racial segregation. The Jim Crow Laws of the southern states, which endured until the 1960s, are examples of de jure segregation. In contrast, de facto racial segregation, which occurred in other states, was accomplished by factors apart from conscious government activity.

Latin: "of the law." The term has come to describe a total adherence of the law. For example, a de jure government is one which has been created in respect of constitutional law and is in all ways legitimate even though a de facto government may be in control.

See Also: http://commonlawgrandjury.com

http://commonlawgrandjury.com/what-happened-to-the-constitution.pdf

http://commonlawgrandjury.com/Grand%20Jury%20Study/grand-jury-study.htm

 

Legal Coup

 

 

 

Comments are closed.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor