Sunday, June 26, 2011


A few posts back I asked a question regarding the implementation by a President of an unratified treaty. I was seeking legal counsel on the subject, but so far have not received legal advice. Still waiting...I decided to research some more....

In case you think a President has restricted powers and that our election of a President is a rather inconsequential exercise of our voting process, you might want to rethink that. Yes, our Constitution gives each branch of government restrictions, "checks and balances" if you will. Not to let a little thing like that get in the way...our recent Presidents have completely ignored the premise of Constitutional restraint.

Evidently, the United States of America has hopped onto a process where we do things based on the United Nations' ideas of how America should be operating. The reason this has come to my attention is the implementation of a United Nations Treaty...under the name of the Rio Treaty or the Kyoto Treaty or Agenda 21...not three different treaties, but the same treaty under different names. (again, the global Marxists keep changing the names of things to deflect criticism and continue on their happy march to global Marxism.)

From Bill Clinton's creation of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, to Obama's creation of the White House Rural Council, we have two Presidents implementing Agenda 21, a United Nations treaty, WITHOUT Congressional approval.

Why would they do this?? They do it because #1. they know the treaty is not compatible with the United States Constitution, and #2. they know the people of the United States would not vote for one iota of it, and 3. they can put the revenue stream in place without our consent over use of our own money. So they do it executive orders.

Well, the last time I checked, the President of the United States does not have dictatorial powers. These executive orders are illegal representations of a United Nations treaty that the American people don't want. Legal counsel, please advise.

Wikipedia on the word "Treaty" - Sole Executive Agreement

"A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a “manifest” violation is required such that it would be “objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision."

"A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority????" Well, I suggest we'd better not "presume" such a thing in the case of United States' Presidents, because they have done just the opposite. Electing a President who refuses to adhere to the will of the people or respect the U.S. Constitution is obviously a bigger problem than most people realize. Hence, the Presidential election is not so inconsequential after it? We used to think that Congress and the Constitution held the reins on Presidents. Evidently not so much.

Wikipedia on the word "Treaty"

"In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President."

Under the United States Constitution, no treaty is valid unless it is ratified by Congress. Yet, we now have Presidents implementing United Nations treaties and edicts without the consent of our representative Congress and thereby, without the consent of the American people. Evidently, from that last paragraph, a sole executive agreement is a treaty by executive order, the President acting alone. Yet, our Constitution requires Congressional ratification of a formal treaty. I'm confused. Are you??

I searched further to find that there is such a thing as a "sole executive agreement." This is also considered a treaty. I found more on that:
"Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[8] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so."Cite Wikipedia on Treaty-Clause

"Although it has not yet done so????" Drat the luck! So, even if a President agrees to a United Nations treaty by his signature and / or implements the tenets of a treaty, it is still subject to adherence to the U.S. Constitution. But no one has nullified such actions?? No process or matter of regulation coming through our government by way of the United Nations' treaty compliance regarding sovereign land use, water use, energy use, etal, is consistent with our Constitutional rights. The rub is that we have local and state elected officials complying with the processes and regulations, thereby implementing a UN treaty, and bypassing referendum or voter consent in doing this. The process has become corrupt. The funding and dictates are coming from the executive branch of our government in order to implement the wishes of the United Nations for control over the U.S. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this??

Our only hope is to UNELECT those who participate in this corrupt scheme of anti-Constitutional dictates, from Presidents all the way down to city councils and county commissioners.

Back to the Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development and Smart Growth) question of treaty implementation without the American voters' consent, I am still looking for legal counsel on the subject. There is nothing in our Constitution which gives the United Nations authority over our land use, energy use, water use, building codes, or anything else within the purview of our sovereign lands. Somehow American Presidents are swearing to uphold our Constitution, but at the same time, putting United Nations' orders and regulations into place using our Federal government as force and our taxes as funding. All of this without Congressional consent.

This is where our sovereignty went. How and when do we get it back??


  1. Another good one, Cheryl. I'm guessing that 90+% of the nations that make up the UN are run by tyrants. So why would we want to partner up with such a group much less subordinate ourselves to such a group? But, that is exactly what our government is doing. It makes me sick to my stomach.

  2. Thanks, Jim...
    You are least to me it makes no sense at all, either. Supposedly the UN was conceived to be a mediation organization between countries to prevent wars.'s that worked out so far?? Now, they have declared war on the sovereignty of every nation through the R2P doctrine and Agenda 21. The UN has declared itself THE World Government...which I suppose is no surprise, but it is ridiculous at best. Unless we get out of the UN and the UN gets out of our business...we are in an impossible situation. Of course, O wants to be king of the the UN is perfect for him. Another tangled mess of nonsense for us to deal with...and it just keeps growing out of control like our own government. Nuts!!

  3. Great post, Cheryl. I've linked to it in my latest rant about the nefarious UN.