National Sovereignty



Some Observations from Elias Alias, editor

Courtesy: History.Com
Photo Courtesy of: History.Com

Emerging from the worded wisdom comprising the written text of the Constitution, the government of the united States of America was born. As the creature of the States in compact, it was referred to as the “General Government”. The union of the States itself, in terms of the written word and will of the People, subsequently became an entity on the world stage, and we call it “America”.

America is a sovereign nation-State Republic inside of which functions the Democratic principle, i.e., “voting”.

The General government’s authority derives its legitimacy from the bosom of the People in their respective sovereign nation-State Republics, referred to in abbreviated vernacular as “the States”. The People won their sovereignty in war, defeating England, and bestowed some of their hard-won sovereignty through their respective States to, first, create the Articles of Confederation and then shortly afterward to, secondly, create the General government. We The People constitute the source of empowerment for the General government. We The People each gave a bit of our personal sovereignty to our respective States, thus empowering, authorizing, and legitimizing the Constitutions of our respective States, creating in that way the States themselves.

Then the States each gave of themselves a portion of their sovereignty, which they got from We The People, that it might empower that newly-created General government for mutual advantage.

Many killed for it. Many died for it. But even as it is today, the majority of the people at that time did neither. A minority of British loyalists and Tories opposed our Revolution, while only a minority of the Colonists fought for our Revolution. Most Colonists abstained from the actual fighting and, with the self-centered sense-based preoccupation of their familial contexts and the challenges of survival, merely continued their daily routines as best they could. In that view of the experience of our own history, Americans can see that successful revolution does not require a majority.

betsy-ross-flag-steven-michaelEighteenth Century man’s view of war included the assumption that from any war must emerge a victor and a vanquished. When they united to throw off British governance the Colonies defeated one of the most powerful military mechanisms of their day. In so doing they established America’s sovereignty as a nation. They ultimately bequeathed that sovereignty to us through a written Constitution.

Therefore, as Americans we each share in a national sovereignty. Our sovereignty as America has survived for over twenty-three decades, despite a War Between The States, two mechanized World Wars, and a trans-generational Cold War which spawned a half-century spate of winner-less, futile, and costly United Nations wars across the last half of the twentieth century, from Korea in 1950 to present-day warfare in Afghanistan.

But despite that, we as Americans are still here, are still singing about Old Glory, are still keeping a somewhat opaque candle glowing in a dimming room, still breathing air as “America”. To put it mildly the world knows we’re here and thinks we’re “real”. America. “One Nation Under God, Indivisible….” And, Sovereign.

The challenge is how to keep our sovereignty – how to retain American sovereignty in a world blindly morphing into global governance.

Powerful forces exist, and are quite busy in a networking infrastructure comprised of men who manage the globe’s economic theater, who seek to control the policies of nation-States, and who fancy themselves somewhat divinely commissioned to save mankind from himself, at whatever the cost. The direction is toward an oligarchic collectivism undergirding a facist merger of the Corporate Dynasty with a one-world Government, based on amassed “laws” (mere codes and statutes) which were written to (allegedly) facilitate international trade and political ontology. It is backed by the assets of all of the nation-States on the roster of the United Nations. Those assets include national militaries, Intelligence communities, indigenous social institutions, and the corporate industries which supply militaries with the goods to do what militaries do.

The globalist collectivist oligarchy has ridden inside our Country’s government on trade agreements, treaties, and pacts. They come as economic methods, political methods, sociological methods, and ecclesiastical methods – and they all make demands for compromising our Constitution.

Right square in its path stands the United States Constitution. That is, in part, why our Constitution, along with our sovereignty as a nation-State Republic, is under siege.

The United Nations (UN) is sitting right here on U.S. soil in New York City, on land donated to the UN by the Rockefeller family. The United Nations would appreciate a little voluntary relinquishment of America’s sovereignty. It is even pushing for it.

For one thing, the UN wants the (alleged) authority which was conjured up and imagined by collectivist oligarchs to be vested in the World Court to supersede the authority in our U.S. Constitution. In other words, in the eyes of the United Nations, if the World Court were to decide that our Constitution’s Second Amendment stood in the way of world crime reduction, the ‘superior authority’ of the World Court fully expects to over-ride our Second Amendment and use the U.S. government’s systems of force (enforcement power) to effect the collection of private firearms across America. Men exist who would like to see that happen. They are as busy as an insidious colony of termites eating away the foundation of civilization, social order, and liberty, while at the same time selling their foolish and futile philosophy in the very name of civilization, social order, and liberty. The one-world government bunch are a sad lot, and are now dangerous to American sovereignty.

That is one example of an attack on American sovereignty, and its current face is that of the UN’s Small Arms Treaty. How the World Court might think it proper and plausible to abuse America’s sovereignty is indicative of the UN’s objective, which is to establish a higher sovereignty through a world government, under which all nation-States, including America, must surrender some of their sovereignty in recognition of the projected higher external authority.

The people who seek that one-world government through the United Nations are doing exactly what the American Colonists did through the establishment of their several States. Americans who wish to remain Americans should not allow that to happen, of course. We can already see what extending our personal sovereignty into governmental entities has wrought, as our own centralized government in WDC is now hell-bent on regulating everything under the sun within each State in our Union – in total disregard for the fact that the States created the General government and placed limits on its granted authorities and duties.

Photo: US History dot Org
Photo: US History dot Org

Were we as Americans to thusly empower the United Nations by offering up American sovereignty to that world governing body and in so doing become subservient to the opinions of nearly two hundred nation-states at the UN, we should only expect the one-world government to follow suit. It is in the very nature of “government” to do this. “To govern” is the purpose of government, which is why the Founders placed limits on the General government’s powers. Our founders knew the intrinsic character of “governance”, and sought to protect us from the very government they created with their hope to serve our best interests and liberty and freedom as individuals.

So let us think carefully about this. The Colonies did unite the several States to form the “United States of America”. Remember — at the time of the American Revolution there were thirteen British Colonies here, and their subsequent union of States, through their compact (the Constitution), engendered the sovereignty of their respective people into an extension for granting authority and legitimacy to a representative government. That is how it was done, as attested by the silent but glaring fact of what we do not see at the bottom of the Constitution – that is, there exists no signature by anyone from, or by any delegate representing, the Federal (General) government. (More on that in the “State Sovereignty title.)

Today, the UN wishes to play the role of a General government of the world, and its “Colonies” are the nearly two hundred nation-states on their membership roster. The hierarchy of authority is the same pattern for the UN’s control over the world’s nation-States as that pattern of our General government’s control over the Colonies, the several States.

We can see today how our own General government ignores its limitations which are clearly and specifically enumerated and granted at Article 1, Section 8. The massive scandals of May, 2013, show clearly how corruptible centralized power may become once it converts its people to “citizens” and then converts said citizens to “subjects”. Unless checked inherently, all governments tend to do this. The States have been in many offensive and intrusive ways bullied out of their due sovereignty, and most States have forgotten their right to the acts of nullification and interposition. Half the country thinks that the War Between The States locked the several States into the compact under all conditions. And in the midst of that argument the entire reality of the sovereignty of the individual is forgotten or overlooked or just ignored. The States now fear the General government in Washington D.C. more than they respect their own citizens, to whom they owe primary fealty.

Our General government itself is signed onto the roster of nation-state membership in the United Nations, which would love to see Americans disarmed and existing under yet a third governing body, that it might more readily shape this nation into a more compliant resource to be shared by every other nation-State on earth, fairly and equally of course.
That has much to do with why national sovereignty is prerequisite to the experience of freedom of the individual to own and manage his life without interference from his government. The “consent of the governed” must always be in play. Questioning “authority” is a mandatory.

I will temporarily close this article, for the moment, with an admonition for all reading here to spend some time investigating another United Nations mischief called Agenda-21.

Much more on that will soon appear here at our national website, but for openers avid readers and inquiring minds may wish to build their respective understandings of Agenda-21 by reading at Michael Shaw’s wonderful website, “Freedom Advocates”.


Elias Alias, editor

2 thoughts on “National Sovereignty

  1. Good article. But somethings I do disagree with (no surprise there, right?).

    “The globalist collectivist oligarchy has ridden inside our Country’s government on trade agreements, treaties, and pacts. They come as economic methods, political methods, sociological methods, and ecclesiastical methods…’

    It is critical for people to understand that the people who SERVE WITHIN our government – elected, hired, contracted, etc – are not “THE” government. They are put there to carry out duties that are in writing. They agree to the “contract” – US Constitution, state Constitutions where it apples, more tightly bound to that contract by an Oath that requires certain things from them in order to meet the qualifications of the position they occupy. When they break that contract they no longer meet the qualifications of the position they occupy.

    The US Constitution says in writing exactly what is allowed, allowed only under certain conditions, and at times only by omission – what is forbidden for those that serve within our governments to do as representatives of the people. The US Constitution does not say anywhere within it that the people who serve within our nation can make any treaties, etc with foreign entities, foreign nations, foreign people, etc that goes against the US Constitution.

    Our problem is not what traitors and domestic enemies do while they serve, it is what all of us Oath takers do – still serving or still under Oath but not serving within the government anymore.

    The Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses which set forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President is required to take the oath after he assumes the office but before he can lawfully execute it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised. That Oath is to PRESERVE, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution. Show me where signing a treaty with a foreign entity giving away our sovereignty does that – lawful senate agreed treaty or not.

    Those that serve within the position of the US President and within the Senate get the Authority they use to act from the US Constitution. The objects of their lawful powers are listed in writing within the US Constitution. The President and Senate BOTH must be authorized by the contract they are under, the Constitution, to act lawfully on any Treaty made by them is to become part of the supreme Law of this Land. If the Constitution does not authorize the President and Congress to act on an object, the Treaty is not “Law” – it then becomes a usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such. Our US Constitution is the fundamental law of this nation, and it is THE standard by which the legitimacy of all Presidential Acts, all Acts of Congress, all Treaties, and all Judicial Decisions is measured. (Federalist 33, Federalist 78 and the US Constitution itself)

    Alexander Hamilton: “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution… On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

    The general (federal) government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by treaty. The president and 2/3 of the Senate may NOT do by Treaty what it is NOT permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution. If they were to do so, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States. It would be a mere usurpation, unlawful, a crime against our nation and the American people. That “treaty”, and the people who agreed to it pretending to lawfully represent us and our nation would deserve to be treated as the criminals they would be/are.

    Thomas Jefferson: “According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace.”

    John Jay, Federalist 64 says that treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation”.

    Madison, Federalist 42 says treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors and consuls and to commerce.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “… a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.”

    Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause, Federalist 33: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

    St. George Tucker: “The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent?”

    The real problem is enforcement, but again, the US Constitution tells us what LAWFUL enforcement consists of, as do the framers.

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33: “…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….”

    It doesn’t matter what they sign, nor does it matter that it is the UN or anyone else. They have no real lawful authority to represent the American people and/or the USA once they break their contract and Oath. All of that is in writing. WE have decades of stuff signed and enforced by those either treasonous or ignorant of our legitimate government – but still treason and *terrorism used against us. Dr. Vieira has also said this, though in a better way then I here.

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.”

    We must decide how to deal with this legal fiction in a lawful and constitutional manner in order to restore the US Constitution – and to this time follow it completely and give it a chance.

    “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 243.

    “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

    “The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.

    “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

    “What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.

    *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.


  2. Thinking even further on this matter, and at night (when I am writing this) I am “dull” of thinking, when they try to give our sovereignty to a foreign entity/etc they are saying that they no longer want to be in the position they are occupying because when the US Constitution ends, those positions end. Does that not mean that they are not only resigning, but resigning by treason?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *