America on death row? Sovereignty MATTERS!!!

What constitutes being an American?

Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?

The United States is a sovereign nation. Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation, governed by the American people, that controls its own affairs. The American people adopted the Constitution and created the government. They elect their representatives and make their own laws.

The Founding Fathers understood that if America does not have sovereignty, it does not have independence. If a foreign power can tell America “what we shall do, and what we shall not do,” George Washington once wrote to Alexander Hamilton, “we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little.”

The Founders believed in sovereignty. In 1776, they fought for it. But why does sovereignty still matter to America?

The Declaration of Independence tells us why sovereignty mattered to America’s Founders.

When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

With these words, the United States declared its sovereignty. It became a separate nation, entitled to all the rights of existing nations. It therefore claimed the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

But the existing nations of the world were mostly monarchies. The Founding Fathers had a different vision for America. The United States is legitimately sovereign not because of a monarch’s decree, but because, in America, the people rule.

The purpose of government is to secure the people’s rights. Legitimately sovereign governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thus, American sovereignty is justified by the inherent, God-given right of self-government.

The Declaration cataloged the ways in which King George III had infringed upon American liberties and denied the right of Americans to consent to the laws by which they were governed. Through his “repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny,” the King had treated the American colonists as mere subjects to be ruled.

In the Declaration, King George III’s offenses included:

  • “Transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences.” The King claimed the authority to seize American colonists and force them to stand trial in Great Britain for criminal offenses allegedly committed in America.
  • “He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws.” Although the American colonists were British subjects, they never consented to be bound by the commands of the British Parliament, a legislative body in which they were not represented.
  • “Imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” Americans were incensed by the King’s imposition of the Stamp Act of 1765, which taxed colonists by requiring them to print their legal documents, newspapers, and magazines on specially stamped paper produced only in London.

It is universally acknowledged that the enlarged prospect of happiness, opened by the confirmation of our Independence and Sovereignty, almost exceeds the power of description. – George Washington
November 2, 1783

Library of Congress

 

These acts infringed on the colonists’ ability to govern themselves. A people subject to foreign taxation, or to being transported across the seas to face criminal charges in a foreign land, are not truly independent. In the Declaration, the Founding Fathers gave notice that these infringements on American sovereignty would not stand.

But today, our sovereignty faces new threats. International organizations and courts seek to reshape the international system. Nations are to give up their sovereignty and be governed by a “global consensus.” Independent, sovereign nations will be replaced by “transnational” organizations that reject national sovereignty.

The demand that the United States bow to this “global consensus” does not respect American sovereignty. The offenses the Founders complained of in the Declaration of Independence now have an international flavor. This new project is filled with examples of institutions, courts, and “taxes” that violate the spirit of the Declaration:

  • In 1998 the International Criminal Court was established. It is empowered to subject American soldiers to criminal prosecution in Holland for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Founders rejected trying Americans outside American courts.
  • In Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2010, an international conference drafted a global treaty to regulate energy use in the United States. An international bureaucracy would monitor compliance with the treaty’s terms. The Founders rejected subjecting Americans to “a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution.”
  • In recent years, international organizations and foreign leaders have proposed “international taxes” on airline tickets and financial transactions—taxes that would be borne by American citizens and businesses. The revenues collected would be spent by unaccountable international organizations. The Founders rejected taxation without representation.

This transnationalist vision also carries profound implications for U.S. national security. Many international leaders, and even some American legal scholars, believe that the United Nations Security Council—and not the American people, the President, or Congress—should have the final say on the legitimacy of the use of American military force.

International organizations seek to dictate fundamental aspects of Americans’ personal and professional lives. Committees whose members include egregious human rights violators such as Cuba, China, and Syria regularly admonish the U.S. to implement racial and gender quotas, and lecture American families on how to raise and educate their own children.

No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognize and accept the principle …that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property. –Woodrow Wilson
January 22, 1917

The proper exercise of diplomacy by the United States does not threaten our sovereignty. The Founding Fathers understood the value of diplomacy. They drafted the Constitution, in part, because they wanted the United States to be able to negotiate treaties with other nations. But they also understood that American foreign policy must ultimately be controlled by the American people.

That is why, for instance, the United States Senate must approve treaties that are negotiated by the President. That is how our diplomatic process works. But today, American sovereignty is threatened by the many treaties that seek to take power away from the nations that negotiate them. The solution is not to reject treaties or diplomacy: it is to return to the vision of the Founders, and to their belief that the American people have an inherent right of self-government, through their elected representatives, that cannot be extinguished by any treaty.

The drafters of the Declaration would be surprised to find Americans submitting themselves to these international organizations, and the constraints on independence that they have spawned. The United States may, of course, work with other nations in a principled way that advances its national interests. But the Founders would be amazed by the extent and depth of the threats to American sovereignty posed by this new transnationalist vision.

The Founders did not risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor casting off the rule of King George III so that, two hundred years later, the United States could subject itself to the whims of unelected foreign bureaucrats and international lawyers. Sovereignty was essential to the founding of America in 1776, and it is essential to America today.

By declaring its independence from King George III and the British Parliament, America declared its sovereignty. By dedicating itself to the principles of liberty, equality, and popular consent, it set the standard by which all sovereign nations are to be judged.

Steven Groves is the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.

Enduring Truths

  • George Washington, “Resignation Address to the Continental Congress,” December 23, 1783
    In this short speech, Washington resigned his commission as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. In it, he expresses his gratitude to Providence, and his satisfaction at the confirmation of American sovereignty.
  • The Declaration of Independence
    The Declaration states that the United States is and has the right to be “free and independent.” The Declaration is based on the right of self-government inherent in the American people, and on their need to form a government that would protect their inalienable rights.
  • Jeremy A. Rabkin, The Case for Sovereignty: Why the World Should Welcome American Independence, 2004
    Rabkin defends the concept of sovereignty against common misunderstandings and distortions, and shows how the Founding Fathers relied on it as the basic principle in international affairs. Abandoning sovereignty would undermine American democracy, and destroy the advantages sovereignty offers America and the world.
  • John Bolton, “The Coming War on Sovereignty,” Commentary, March 2009
    Ambassador Bolton demonstrates that the liberal elite views sovereignty as a mere abstraction. But that is not the understanding of the U.S. Constitution, which “locates the basis of its legitimacy in ‘we the people,’ who constitute the sovereign authority of the nation.”

Current Issues

  • THE LANGUAGE OF FREEDOM. The Heritage Foundation, “Reclaiming the Language of Freedom at the United Nations,” September 6, 2006.
    In this report, Heritage experts explain how the U.N. is failing the cause of freedom, and how national sovereignty is critical to achieving and protecting human rights.
  • THE UNITED NATIONS. Steven Groves and Brett Schaefer, “The U.N. Human Rights Council: No Better for Obama’s Engagement,” November 9, 2009.
    Groves and Schaefer explain the history of the Council and its failures, demonstrate that American involvement has not improved its sorry record, and make recommendations for fundamental reform.
  • DEFENDING SOVEREIGNTY. Steven Groves, “The ‘Kyoto II’ Climate Change Treaty: Implications for American Sovereignty,” November 17, 2009.
    Groves demonstrates that the contemplated successor to the Kyoto treaty on climate change will seriously threaten American sovereignty. It will be intrusive, inflexible, transfer vast sums of money to other countries, and give up power to international bureaucracies.

Download the Report:

 

 

 

 Is U.S. Sovereignty in Danger?

Lee F. McKenzie
PO Box 807, Riverton, UT 84065

The essential importance of U.S. sovereignty

      Of critical importance to all patriotic Americans is the Constitution of the United States of America. The purpose of our government is to preserve and protect for each citizen the rights of life, liberty, and property. Threats to Constitutional rights due to forces outside America might be viewed in terms of a loss of Sovereignty.

Pacified into thinking there is no problem

      For a great many years I had not given much thought that a loss of U.S. Sovereignty was much of a danger. On the surface I recognized the fact that America had in the past been involved in great wars. The threats from fascist and totalitarian governments were overcome as Americans patriotically rose to the defense of home, country, and freedom. Like most Americans, I had thought that the greatest danger to American Sovereignty would always come from this type of external hostility.

A subtle and hidden danger

      In recent years I have become alert to a different, more subtle and sinister way in which Americans can lose their Sovereignty and Constitutional rights. If the United States enters into a treaty with another country, group of countries or international organizations, then the citizens of the United States are subject to the terms of such treaties. If the terms of international treaties are contrary in any way to the fundamental Constitutional Rights, America’s Sovereignty is compromised. Americans are then in jeopardy of losing their most cherished freedoms.

The greatest external threats to U.S. sovereignty and constitutional rights

      In the first of the “Federalist Papers” Alexander Hamilton said that:”…a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people” and “that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.”
It would seem that the heated emotional pleas for rights carry the greatest danger for America’s loss of Soveriegnty. Today we are faced with a number of such emotional issues which involve attempts to get the United States to sign treaties. Some of these issues are as follows:

International treaties on the rights of children
International treaties on the rights of women
International free trade agreements
International treaties on the environment

Specific examples of loss of sovereignty

      NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, appeals to the altruistic feelings of fairness in many Americans. However, the terms of this agreement supersede federal, state, and local laws on health standards of produce and other food products. By the terms of NAFTA, the United States is compelled to accept substandard foods. This places the health of Americans at risk. In effect, Americans have lost in this matter their rights of self determination normally associated with sovereignty.
Canadians, like Americans, worked hard to remove lead from gasoline. In Canada, tetraethyl lead in gasoline was replaced a number of years ago by a manganese compound. The particular manganese compound used in Canadian gasoline is made in the US by a multi-national company called Ethyl Corporation. Accumulating evidence of health hazards associated with the use of the manganese compound recently prompted the Canadian Government to ban the use of the manganese compound in Canada. Under an ‘obscure’ clause of NAFTA (which the Canadian Government signed).
Ethyl Corporation sued the Canadian Government and forced them to reintroduce the manganese compound into Canadian gasoline. In addition the Ethyl Corporation is claiming 200 million in damages from the Canadian people due to their breech of obligations under NAFTA. Very clearly by signing NAFTA, the government of Canada lost a measure of sovereignty for Canadians. Whether the health threats of manganese additives in gasoline are real or imagined, the Canadian people ought to have the right of self determination to decide for themselves. Yet, sadly, that right was taken away in the stroke of a pen when Canada signed NAFTA.
In recent years the United Nations has assembled ‘peace keeping forces’ from among participating nations. The US has participated heavily in these activities. In a number of instances, US troops have been instructed to put on UN insignias and serve under the command of foreign commanders. In some cases, individual servicemen have refused to serve under foreign commanders and have been summarily subject to court martial and dishonorable discharge. The legal arguments of these soldiers have been that upon joining the US Military they made a commitment to defend the Constitution of the US and that service under foreign commanders in an international army was not part of the agreement.
Although the US Senate has refused to ratify the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty, President Clinton has directed the US State Dept. to put terms of this treaty into effect. This involves an agreement to manage ‘biosphere reserves’ according to international dictates and objectives. The intention is to progressively limit and finally cut off human access to these areas. Starting with Yellowstone National Park in 1979, UNESCO has designated 47 biosphere reserves in the US covering 50 million acres. At Yellowstone, UN delegates who surveyed the area last year called for a ‘buffer zone’ around the park.
By placing US lands under the direction and control of foreign entities, the US has agreed to limit our sovereign power to manage our own lands. Americans who live in areas adjacent to biosphere reserves are being deprived of their rights of property. The Clinton administration’s designation of Yellowstone Park as a World Heritage Site ‘in danger’ has already been used to shut down a gold mine near (not even in) Yellowstone. Currently the park service is choking off the local economy by refusing to maintain certain highways and by buying up any property available.
Of course, there will be plenty available as more and more owners are denied use of their own private property which causes businesses to shut down and the economy to slow. The UN/UNESCO representatives have made no secret of their goals. Their next step is their Wildlands Project, a plan to designate one half of the US as protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity. Inside Yellowstone, the Park Service is shutting down campgrounds as the park is being prepared to become the core of a huge biosphere reserve, as part of the UN’s global plan. Once established, no human activity will be permitted in the area.

The real driving force behind international free trade agreements

      I continue to marvel in light of European history how the many European countries are now coming together in a ‘European Economic Community’. I ask how the many differences and traditions of mistrust have been disguised, obscured, or overcome in such a few short years.
About a year ago, I participated in a business and technical meeting involving international representatives of my own company as well as international officials of another very large, multi-national company which supplies our business with certain chemicals. An official of our trading partner spoke about the worldwide presence of his company’s operations. He spoke of his company having corporate representatives or ‘corporate ambassadors’ whose mission is to ‘break down barriers’ by working with world governments. The barriers of which he speaks include: trade barriers, labor barriers, environmental barriers, etc. These are barriers which make it difficult for the multinational company to do business.
One particular labor barrier which he mentioned involved workers in the asia pacific area. In that region, it is difficult to find workers which are trained to do the work of this company. After making an investment of time and money to train workers, this multinational company often experienced the disappointment of the workers leaving the company for better offers. He then said that his company had found a way to keep workers with the company — hold the mortgage on their home.
Despite the fact that such workers might have the best living accommodations they had ever enjoyed, I had a cold feeling come over me regarding the method used to control peoples lives. It reminded me of the old ‘company stores’ which were a part of America’s early history.
In reflecting upon my business experiences in light of current events, I have come to a number of conclusions. The large multi-national companies have little concern for culture, religious morals, or specific national ethics. Their primary objective is to get gain and do business without restriction. In doing so they attempt to break down barriers or obstacles to doing business between countries.
I believe that the primary driving forces behind establishment of the European Economic Community and other international trading agreements like NAFTA are the multi-national companies. The financial power behind these huge organizations is tremendous, both to influence government officials as well as to shape public opinion through the media.

Actions to be taken

1. America’s elected officials must stop accepting political campaign contributions and PAC money from multinational companies so that they can act without bias in the interest of Americans and Constitutional Rights. Since election laws have traditionally been considered a state right, and since each state has a different set of election laws, it would be easy to approach the issue of campaign funds in state legislatures.

2. States should vigorously defend and maintain local control of wilderness areas and historical sites. No one loves Utah more than Utahn’s. Putting Utah’s public lands in control of external entities places such lands at risk to the whims of those who have private agendas.

3. Utah’s legislators should be alert to issues containing emotional traps (like childrens rights, womens rights, environment etc) which can subtly erode genuine Constitutional Rights. The US does not need to sign treaties to do what is morally and Constitutionally right for its citizens.

4. The best and most noble role of the UN is to be a forum and catalyst for peace among nations, a place where disagreements can be resolved before war and hostilities erupt. The UN should not intrude upon the sovereign rights of peoples and governments to manage their own affairs. There is a danger in giving the UN a standing army. There is a danger in making nations subject and liable to mandated controls by the UN .

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.