The Anti Federalist Writers Predicted the Tyranny We Live In Today
Lonestar watchdog
reaties are not the law of the land regardless what the politicians may say. The rights of the people cannot be abrogated or changed by a treaty. The President cannot ban all firearms with the UN making the decrees of what is law or not. All treaties have to be in agreement with the Constitution and the bill of rights. But not to the Tyrants who seek to twist the Constitution.
Under Article 2 Sec. 2 clause 2 in the US Constitution states:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
The President with the advice and consent of the Senate seeking to sign the UN Small Arms treaty. The question is about the treaty is. Does is agree with the Constitution?
If you read in the Anti Federalist papers there was a concern about the Senate and the President with the power to make treaties. The writers seen the imbalance of power not having the House of Representatives involved in ratifying treaties. They have seen the possible flaw that can be a threat to all our freedoms expressing their concern in Anti Federalist number 75. Here is what the writer says:
I see nothing to hinder the president and senate, at a convenient crisis, to declare themselves hereditary and supreme, and the lower house altogether useless, and to abolish what shadow of the state constitutions remain by this power alone; and as the president and senate have all that influence which arises from the creating and appointing of all offices and officers, who can doubt but at a proper occasion they will succeed in such an attempt? And who can doubt but that men will arise who will attempt it? Will the doing so be a more flagrant breach of trust, or a greater degree of violence and perfidy, than has already been practiced in order to introduce the proposed plan?
Why Because the people’s house has no say in ratification of treaties that could be a threat to our republican form of government and our God Given Liberties. The author says the congress as a whole ratifying treaties is better on chamber and the President. The writer emphatically makes the point again in Anti Federalist 75 again saying:
Therefore, though the small house of representatives will consist of the natural aristocracy of the country, as well as the senate, yet not being dangerously combined with the executive branch, it has not such certain influential inducements to corruption.
Also the Writer of Anti Federalist 84 says about treaties saying:
This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.
The writer has seen the potential for corruption with the Senate and the President in the treaty making process and seen the House of Representitives bringing balance of power to the process if Congress as a whole ratified treaties. This is the concern of all the anti Federalist writers of a centralized government seizing power over time. In Anti Federalist number 17 says so eloquently:
It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the Constitution would warrant a law of this kind! Or unnecessarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting that the Federal legislature would be more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the Constitution, than that of an individual State, further than they are less responsible to the people. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontrollable powers of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers; and are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the State governments, and reduce this country to one single government.
The Writers expressed the concern that without a Bill of Rights, this Constitution has sown the seeds of tyranny as the Anti Federalist Paper #84 makes the point saying:
If we may collect the sentiments of the people of America, from their own most solemn declarations, they hold this truth as self-evident, that all men are by nature free. No one man, therefore, or any class of men, have a right, by the law of nature, or of God, to assume or exercise authority over their fellows. The origin of society, then, is to be sought, not in any natural right which one man has to exercise authority over another, but in the united consent of those who associate.
This is why the Bill of Rights was adopted and ratified as part of the Constitution to restrain government. As expressed in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights which declares:
The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
President Obama who is ready to sign the UN Small Arms Treaty and the Law of the Sea treaty is close to being ratified with two thirds of the Senate concurring. These two treaties all are to the Contrary, not withstanding. The two treaties go against our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are unconstitutional. They both bring in foreign influence which had the concern of many of the early founders in Anti Federalist Papers #3
The policies of the politicians in Washington with powers not delegated by the Constitution will eventually lead to another civil war by provocation or by design from foreign influence off shore controlling our elected representatives. If Obama comes after everyone’s firearms and to confiscate all private property to satisfy the bankers. This will start a conflict because of government overreach. When civil war happens Anti Federalist writer in article #7 sees into the future says: