Amendment: Supremacy Over Foreign Treaties and Agreements

February 11, 2024.  Greg Penglis

Constitutional Amendment:

Section One:

The Constitution shall be amended by adding the following language to Article IV, creating a new Section 5. 

Treaties and agreements signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, shall have no jurisdiction, bearing or effect on the Constitution, on State Constitutions and powers, or on the rights of Citizens of the United States.

Section Two:

The 17th Amendment is hereby repealed.

Rationale:

I’ve always found it curious why only the Senate had to ratify treaties and not the House. But it makes sense if you think about what was happening back when the Constitution was ratified. The House was to be elected by the people, apportioned among the States, and was in line with a Republic, with the direct representation of — The People.

The Senate was elected by the States through the State Legislatures, thus guaranteeing the direct representation of — The States. This is also in line with a Republic through a separation of powers. All States have two Senators, because all States are equal in power before their creation, the federal government under the Constitution. Therefore it is ultimately — The States — through their Senators, that actually have the power of advice and consent regarding the binding of these United States to a treaty with a foreign nation.

It was presumed I believe according to the language, that when the President negotiated any treaty, the Senate would work with the President, "by and with," during the entire treaty process. Since the Senators represent the States in Congress, the President must effectively work, "by and with" the States, and therefore has no independent power or authority to enter into a treaty or agreement negotiation without the States.

All treaties are made with foreign governments, not with international organizations. Those are agreements. The question then becomes to whom those agreements made by the federal government have jurisdiction over? The feds, particularly our illegal Coup d’Etat government, would have you believe that any agreement they make, even if it violates our constitutional rights, is still the Supreme Law of the land, because of how treaties, not agreements, are stated in the Constitution. But that is simply not true.

Another consideration of our founding is that there were no agreements with any world government or world organizations, because there weren’t any. The Treaty clauses in the Constitution were made at a time before there were any thoughts of world government organizations or actual bodies. Nations were the highest governing authority, and by themselves had no legal power over other countries, therefore the only place they could reach agreements or contracts were in fact treaties, negotiated by the various heads of state and approved by their federal government procedures.

Unfortunately, definitions change. Now there is an attempt to merge international agreements into the concept of treaties, which is completely dishonest and intellectually impossible if you know the correct word definitions. In order to protect ourselves from our own national government, legal or illegal, and to protect ourselves from all those world government bodies and the nations that support them, even though the Constitution and Bill of Rights do that already, in the interest of constitutional clarification, spelling out exactly the jurisdiction of agreements and treaties and the process for acquiring them, and heading off this kind of problem in the future, I am proposing this constitutional amendment.

Given that treaties are only meant to be between these United States and other foreign nations, and given that the States ultimately had control of treaty approval through the Senators elected by the State Legislatures, one has to question whether the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, stripping the State Legislatures of their legitimate power under our Republic to elect Senators who would represent the States in Congress, could it not be said now that without the direct input of the States since the 17th Amendment, that no Treaty since 1913 is valid?

No treaty ratified since 1913, is valid…

Think about that. I would contend that any mention of treaties in the Constitution where such treaty clauses were based on the States having final approval of any treaty, that those clauses in the Constitution regarding treaties may no longer be valid either. This is just one of many reasons to repeal the 17th Amendment. Countless others can be found in the endless amount of articles about unfunded mandates, no State representation anywhere in the federal government, a continual usurpation of State power by the feds with the incorrect presumption that the federal government is the supreme government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The States are the supreme governments of these United States. Repealing the 17th Amendment will restore the logic of our original Constitution, restore the States to their rightful representation in the Senate, and put the federal government through renewed State oversight, squarely back under the strict limits of the Constitution.

Endorsements: