Our Dysfunctional Republic Part 10

This segment in this series will conclude my coverage of the Articles of the U.S. Constitution by covering both Article 6 and Article 7. I am going to go about this somewhat different, in that I wish to cover Article 7 first, so that I can spend the majority of my time on Article 6, which I feel is of greater importance.

Article 7 merely states that the Constitution would not go into effect until it had been ratified, or agreed upon by nine out of the thirteen states. The text of Article 7 states, "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

Now I would like to spend some time discussing Article 6. In my opinion, when you take into consideration that the entire Constitution was agreed upon, or ratified by the states, it is the most important of all the Articles of the entire document. Article 6 states,

"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The first clause of Article 6 merely states that all debts and agreements entered into prior to the Constitution were still binding and valid. It is the next two clauses upon which I would like to devote the rest of my time discussing.
The first part of the second clause states, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..."

To understand this portion of the second clause, it is imperative that the word pursuance be completely understood in its usage. Pursuance means "execution of something: the process of doing something or carrying it out in the way that is expected or required."

So, in other words, the Constitution, and all the laws that are made to carry out the Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme, or highest law in the land. Therefore if the Constitution does not authorize our government to pass legislation that the Constitution does not specifically state these legislators, and the president if he signs that bill into law, are in violation of the Constitution. It is that simple. I have already discussed in my coverage of Article 5, the proper way to amend the Constitution if the need arises. However, as George Washington so emphatically stated, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

The first part of this clause also mentions, "...and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States..." While I am not as educated on all the treaties that have been entered into by the United States, I have done quite a bit of research on these so called 'free trade agreements' such as GATT, and NAFTA.

Although under international law, NAFTA is considered a treaty, in the United States it is classified as a congressional-executive agreement. I find no mention in the Constitution, regarding the authority of our government to enter into a congressional-executive agreement with another sovereign that may have detrimental effects upon the citizens of the United States. Yet a little known chapter in NAFTA does just that. Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows for a three judge arbitration tribunal to settle disputes between nations and corporations, all done in secrecy.

For example, in 1999, the Governor of California, Gray Davis issued an executive order to phase out MTBE due to its adverse environmental effects. The Canadian company, Methanex filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government claiming that California was going to damage future profits by their actions. Methanex did not pursue their case in a federal court, they went to a NAFTA tribunal, whose decision, although favorable to California, was final and not subject to review or appeal. The idea that a tribunal whose proceedings are secret from the public, sets a precedent which threatens to undermine the authority of our court system. Yet George Bush Sr. signed the agreement, binding our country to an agreement that has done nothing to improve the lives of the average American citizen. If anything it has made life worse for many of us.

Overall, the trade policy of our government has caused serious harm to the manufacturing base that made our country the power we once were. In testimony given before Congress, the following statement shows how our governments trade policies have affected the average citizen,

“The growth in the trade deficit over the past two decades has destroyed millions of high-wage, high skilled manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and pushed workers into other sectors where wages are lower, such as restaurants and health service industries. When I appeared before this committee last spring, I summarized EPI forecasts that the Asia Crisis would lead to the elimination of one million jobs in the U.S., with most of the losses concentrated in the manufacturing sectors of the economy (Scott and Rothstein 1998). These job losses have begun to materialize, despite the continuing boom in the rest of the economy. The U.S. has lost nearly 500,000 manufacturing jobs since March of 1998, due to the impact of the rising trade deficit.”
(http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_tradetestimony)

Also, since George W. Bush took office and proceeded with his Security and Prosperity Partnership, the U.S. economy has lost 3.2 million jobs, including 2.5 in manufacturing.

It does not sound as if our governments trade policies and trade agreements have done anything to 'promote the general welfare' as the Preamble states was a purpose of the Constitution to begin with. Therefore these policies come close to being unconstitutional, as they degrade, not promote the general welfare of the union.

Moving on to the last part of the second clause, "...and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

As previously demonstrated, the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization". The laws made in pursuance of this power are contained in Title 8 of the United States Code. It is the duty of the Executive Branch to ensure that these laws are implemented and enforced. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration had 140,000 letters of 'no matches' on employee social security numbers. These letters were to be sent out in an effort to determine if employers were in violation of United States law for hiring illegal aliens. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted a request by labor and civil liberties organizations to temporarily block our government from mailing these letters. This judge apparently does not realize that he is obstructing justice and violating the Constitution by his actions.

His is but one of many examples of how our federal judges have delivered rulings that go against the spirit and the law as contained in the Constitution. Many of these rulings are based upon the court of public opinion, or political correctness, which has no legal validity, as is the case with Judge Breyer's decision.

Finally, the third clause of Article 6 states, "...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

This clause clearly states that all elected representatives from the state up to the federal level shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. As I stated previously, if we think of it as being a contract, that oath or affirmation is their signature agreeing to the terms of the contract as contained in the Constitution. Therefore anything, and I mean any piece of legislation they pass, or even attempt to pass, violates the terms of that contract, and their employment by we the people can be terminated for breach of contract. This can only take place if we the people are also aware of the terms of the contract as contained in the Constitution. And that is the purpose of this series of articles, to hopefully awaken enough people to the many violations of their Constitutional authority that our elected representatives have made.

I have briefly, and I mean very briefly, skimmed over how our government has not been governing according to the powers granted them in our Constitution. In my next segment I will begin to discuss how our government has violated our rights and liberties as contained in the Bill of Rights.