People Examine the Zero Consent Involved With the Unconstitutional UN Treaty. Americans Must Rise up in Opposition to NWO Police State Rule by Elites Seeking to Enslave.

The United Nations has been forced upon us with zero consent by We the People of the United States of America. Below you'll discover Part 3 of Marilyn R. Allen's Letter to the Editor from 1962, which illustrates how this lie came to be.

Part 1 can be found at The Importance of Honesty. From there you can find Part 2. Both these are important reading to get a full picture of what the United Nations really is. They also help explain the New World Order elite who are behind it all.

'With reference to the fourth paragraph of your letter of Oct. 12th, Mr. Newby, that the 'making of treaties is without limitation, exception or reservation' and that 'no treaty has ever been declared unconstitutional or invalidated or repealed by the Courts or Congress in the history of this nation,' I think that the foregoing invalidates your statement.

And as to ARTICLE VI being a 'deathtrap' over which the Constitution gives no control or remedy other than its explicit language in VI regarding the law and treaties:

...has it occurred to you that the Supreme Court has power and authority to rule on the constitutionality of treaties the same as on the constitutionality of any other law--treaties being merely 'part of the Law of the Land'?

ARTICLE III, Section 2 explicitly states:

'The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority'. '

ZERO CONSENT: SHOOTING THE UN TREATY DOWN

'To quote Norton's Constitution of the United States, page 137: 'When a case arises in a State court and involves a question of the Constitution, or an Act of Congress, or of a treaty, it is the duty of the court to follow and enforce the National [constitutional] law.

...for the Constitution explicitly and emphatically requires that the 'judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'

Any time that the President and Senate make a treaty with a foreign power (such as the UN) which infringes upon or abrogates rights guaranteed citizens of the USA under the Constitution, the Supreme Court can declare such treaty unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.

Of course, the present Supreme Court, being composed of political radicals rather than judicial constitutional experts, is not likely to take such action--unless forced to do so by public opinion and demand.'

ZERO CONSENT: MAKING IDIOTS OF THE FOUNDERS

'And so, with reference to your statement in printed CHALLENGE for November, 1961, to the effect that, 'under ARTICLE II, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution...such treaty (as with the UN) can be made without restriction, limitation, exception or reservation irrespective of the fact that it contravenes, violates, infringes or alienates every article of the Constitution.

All that is necessary is for the President and Senate to ratify ANY treaty and it is in force.'

The above article and clause likewise does not stand alone, but must be construed in the light of the entire Constitution.

YOUR interpretation is not only to make idiots of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, but to say that regardless of the solemn Presidential oath of allegiance required by ARTICLE III, Section 2a, regardless of the SUPREME SOVEREIGNTY of the U.S. Constitution, and in violation of the explicit language contained in ARTICLE VI, i.e.,

'THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties...under the authority of the United States...,'

...as well as all authoritative rulings by genuine constitutional authorities to the effect that anything which contravenes the Constitution of the USA is null and void, including any such acts by the Congress; despite all of the foregoing. '

ZERO CONSENT: US MUST RECLAIM SOVEREIGNTY

'I reiterate that YOUR interpretation would claim that there is absolutely NO constitutional safeguard for the American People against TREASONOUS treaties (which 'gives aid and comfort to our enemies' as per ARTICLE III, Section 3).

 

YOUR interpretation would give complete IMMUNITY to the maker...of such treaties and would constitute 'changing the Constitution by usurpation' in violation of the intent, spirit, AND letter of the Constitution as a whole.

The President obviously is NOT a 'free agent' by virtue of ARTICLE II, Section 2, clause 2, to make any sort of treaty he would like, but is BOUND DOWN by the chains of the entire Constitution. Nothing else makes any sense. His treaty-making acts are subject to review by the Courts.

True, we SHOULD DEMAND rescinding of the action by both Senate and Harry S. Truman in signing the UN Participation Act of 1945 on behalf of the USA. This would put the World on notice that we were once more HONORING OUR OWN CONSTITUTION (CHARTER OF FREEDOM) AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, AND REINSTATING IT TO ITS FORMER PROPER SUPREME POSITION: as well as reclaiming our Sovereignty as an Independent Republic in accordance with our Declaration of Independence.

There is not nor ever will be any true Peace, Freedom, Safety or Security for the American People under the alien UN Charter. There is 'NO SUBSTITUTE' for American Independence. Many men have died and 'worms have eaten them' for a far lesser Cause.

And so, Mr. Newby, you and I do have one primary objective in view: GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE UN, AND THE SUBVERSIVE UN OUT OF THE USA!

Most sincerely yours,
Marilyn R. Allen'

The above excerpt and discussion regarding zero consent comes from Behold a Pale Horse (1991), by William Cooper (pp. 247-248).