US Constitution vs. Treaty And Possible Impeachment

United Nations Climate Change Treaty vs. U.S. Constitution

Glenn Beck's Radio Program -  October 19, 2009

Glenn interviews Lord Monckton on the new Climate Change Treaty and what it means for us = One World Government.

Part 1 of 2 
Part 2 of 2 

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher.
- - - - - - - - - -

Another YouTube video where Glenn Beck interviewed Lord Christopher Monckton on the Soviet style takeover of America by the NWO and BHO

United Nations Climate Change Conference
December 7 - 18, 2009
United Nations UNFCCC Web Site
This is the PDF - Countdown to Copenhagen

This will take place in just weeks from now!!!

Obama will give it away to one world Government in Dec.

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. In this 4 minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

A draft of the petition can be read here:

Page 18: Section 38 of the "Share vision for long-term cooperation action plan" contains the text for forming the new government.

Page 40: Section 46 Subsection H of the "Objectives, scope, and guiding principles" contains the text for enforcement and establishment of the rule of law.

There has been considerable debate about Monckton's conclusion that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty to a world government. His comment appears to be based upon his interpretation of the The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2).

This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land. Concerns have been raised in the past that a particularly ambitious treaty may supersede the US Constitution. In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, was proposed in response to such fears, but it failed to pass.

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher.

He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected.

- - - - - - - - - -

Re: the Bricker Amendment the Supremacy Clause and The U. S. Constitution vs. Treaty and Possible Impeachment [with slides

“… the trouble is this, if that treaty is signed, your constitution says that it [ the treaty ] takes precedence over your constitution.

The is the 4 minute video...

“… the trouble is this, if that treaty is signed, your constitution says that it [ the treaty ] takes precedence over your constitution.

“And you can’t resile [ can not recant / recoil ] from that treaty unless your get the agreement of all the other states parties.

“And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out.”

Lord Mocknton is not correct in saying
"… your constitution says that it [ the treaty ] takes precedence over your constitution."

The U.S. Constitution ALWAYS takes precedence over any treaty… the constitution is THE authority that gives ANY treaty authority.
Jeremy Rabkin from George Mason University spoke at a Hillsdale College sponsored event June 5, 2009, in Washington, D.C., in the "First Principles on First Fridays" lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship. It was printed in the July/August 2009 issue of Imprimis.
The Constitution and American Sovereignty

“The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states.

“But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid,
“it must be consistent with the Constitution —
“that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties.

“And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution?

“Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on:
A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.’

“And he gave a very logical reason:
“It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties.

“If a treaty violates the Constitution,
it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. ”

The debate has begun...
If ANY U.S. President signs a treaty that is contrary to the authority of the U.S. Constitution and cedes American sovereignty, is this an impeachable 'high crime" offense AGAINST the U.S. Constitution??? 

What is NOT "protecting and defending" the U.S. Constitution authority if it is NOT a "high crime" against "we the people" of America? 

Ceding American sovereignty by treaty definitely could be included in Obama's statement before his inauguration, "... we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America..."

Is ceding American sovereignty a "high crime" against we the people? Yes...? No...?

I vote yes!!!

Re: “…betraying his principal or authority” and the ‘IMPEACHMENT’ word… for rejecting and subverting the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

If, as President, Obama signs ANY treaty to surrender possession of U.S. sovereignty to an international body… IMPEACHMENT is the constitutional next step because by ceding U.S. sovereignty, Obama is NOT protecting and NOT defending the Constitution of the United States.

So, even if a treaty that cedes U.S. sovereignty can NOT be superior to the U.S. Constitution and binding on America… an impeachment proceeding for ‘high crimes and misdemeanorsMUST begin immediately if "high crime" means anything in America today… and if the whimpy Republicans and lap-dog Democrats are up for a constitutional fight to "protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States!!!

- - - - - - - - - -

 The Powerpoint slides (without video text) can be downloaded on PDF format from

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

a) World Government; b) Redistribute Wealth; c) Enforcement Authority

a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [= the climate debt Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [= enforcement].
- - - - - - - - - -

Lord Christopher Monckton
"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created.
The word government actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, a “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. And we've been screwing up the climate. We haven't been screwing up the climate, but that's the line.
And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once.
So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because they'ed [the communists] captured it. Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.
You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it. [laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it [UN Treaty] takes precedence over your constitution , and you can’t resile [can not recant / recoil]  from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties. And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free.
But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back.
That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, economically speaking, there is nothing we can do about it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Questions of Lord Christopher Monckton
The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them.
How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.
I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you.
The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty.
There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to, they will find, if they look carefully enough, a [PDF] copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago.
Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change].
Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -
I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.
I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?
I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that.
Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it.
But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind.
However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible.
So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

Lift Up America... Again!!!

My photo
El Paso, Texas, United States