After reading an analysis of how the federal government has seized municipal control over the many States written by Larry Becraft, Esq., Sierra Times, �Treaties: A Source for Federal Municipal Power�, it was found to be a fine analysis of what has occurred and does give excellent cites. However, it misses a most important concept.

Rather than looking at treaties from the perspective of Supreme Court decisions allegedly allowing for federal municipal policing powers, it is better suited to look at the government�s actions through rational and common law (constitutional) reasoning concerning the government�s obligations to the people.

Granted, Article II, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America does give the President the power of making treating in a sense. It states:

�He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;�

Thus, the President does have the power to make treaties presumably with other countries and the Indian Nations but ONLY if he has the consent of the Senate. Does this mean the President with the Senate�s consent has the power to make treaties that deprive citizens of their constitutional rights? This question must be addressed.

It is believed by the people of the United States of America, and rightfully so, that the Constitution secures the rights of people, whether enumerated or not (9th Amendment). It is also commonly understood the Constitution is the document securing that government is mandated to protect and secure those rights above all else, that there is in fact no other reason for the government to exist. Without it, we would simply be obligated to protect our own rights in any manner we deemed appropriate.

In forming the union, the framers wrote the Preamble of the Constitution to clearly delineate the purpose of the Constitution.

�We the People of the United States, in Order to from a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.�

Clearly, then, the Constitution is a document of the people, by the people, and for the people. The framers intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty and prohibit encroachments on the on the self-evident rights of the People by the federal and other levels of government. (Article VI)

What are the self-evident rights of the people secured by the 9th Amendment? Simply put, self-evident rights are those God-ordained rights bestowed on each person to do anything desired in the pursuit of happiness, PROVIDED the act does not infringe upon the rights of any other citizen.

Furthermore, in establishing government and its limitations, the specific jurisdiction of the federal government is clearly stated in the Constitution. Its jurisdiction extends only to the District of Columbia and (if the legislature in any applicable state cedes jurisdiction over purchased places) over those places designated as forts, magazines, arsenals, �dock-Yards�, and needful buildings. Thus, the jurisdiction of the federal government is extremely limited.

To further assure against federal encroachment, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees every state in the Union a Republic form of government, that the federal government will protect each against invasion and violence, including domestic. Therefore, the sovereignty of the many states remains intact.

Add to this Article VI, Clause 2, that documents the Constitution, and Treaties made, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, that all judges in every state are bound to this law, and, Clause 3, that all executive officers of any level of government are bound by law to support the Constitution.

With the fact that Treaties made also become the supreme Law of the Land, we now come to the question that should cause great concern for every man, woman, and child in this nation. The question is whether any treaty may be lawfully made which circumvents the rights of the People. I.e., if a President proposes a treaty with another country that affects adversely the rights of the People as in a treaty that upsets domestic tranquility, deprives a citizen of his rights, and serves as an invasion tool of the federal government upon the many States, should the Senate approve such a treaty?

Furthermore, if a treaty is in existence that violates rights of the People, is it valid? Or may it be lawfully applied only in the jurisdiction areas of the US Government?

One might ask if it is even conceivable that the framers of the Constitution meant to deny every citizen his rights based on an agreement between the United States (the government) and another country. In other words, did the founders intend the federal government to be able to circumvent secured constitutional rights simply by making a treaty with another country? Isn�t this giving an avenue to plenary control by the central government over the States, and, hence, the People?

We must consider it is the obligation of the President of the United States to insure that the Constitution is upheld, that he does not have the power to deprive citizens of rights, and that he must use his office to protect against any encroachment on rights. In fact, unless he agrees to this by subscribing to the Presidential Oath, he must vacate his office.

Second, it is the obligation of the Senate of the United States (also by Oath) to uphold the Constitution. Since the purpose of the Constitution, and the amendments to the Constitution which become part of the Constitution, is to secure the rights of the People, how could any treaty effectively giving police power over the sovereign (the People) to the federal government be valid and consented to as lawful by the Senate? Clearly, it is not possible.

In providing control against the corruption of under color laws, the officials appointed to the Supreme Court are allegedly learned men and women who have complete understanding of the purpose of the Constitution. Otherwise, how could they know whether they are ruling within the limits of the Constitution? These are appointed officials who must accept that theirs is NOT a political role, meaning decisions are required to be based ONLY on constitutional common law (as per their Oath), and not political policy.

The Supreme Court, part of the judicial arm of government, clearly has the obligation to rule within the limits of the Constitution in the quest to assure justice. Since common law precedes man-made law, and since only God�s laws bind we citizens of the 50 states, then the Supreme Court has no authority to deprive any citizen of any self-evident right, whether there is a man-made law, federal or otherwise, to the contrary. Justice is only served by observing the common law of the Constitution.

Thus, the Supreme Court is �required� to declare any act by either the Congress or the President, or both, that infringes upon the rights of a sovereign as being unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and void. The requirement of upholding the Constitution and preserving the sovereign�s rights furthermore demands that every treaty that has infringed upon the rights of the people in the 50 States be declared as not applying to the 50 States.

Besides, other than agreements preventing military actions (we won�t shoot at you if you don�t shoot at us), are most treaties necessary? Or, do they fulfill a hidden agenda? Just as an example, consider the treaty concerning migratory birds. The people of this nation are intelligent and generally have a love of nature. The problem should have been explained to the people and legislators of the many States. Except in the minds of those people intent on plenary control, there is little question that the people in each state would have made laws protecting the birds, just as they have made laws protecting other wildlife within the states. Unlawful interference from the federal government was not needed, desired, or constitutionally legitimate.

�Unlawful interference� is stated because each treaty made (that has resulted in federal policing actions against the people of this nation) is against the basic principles secured by the Constitution, against the principles of States as Republics, and in violation of constitutional federal jurisdiction.

One is forced to the conclusion that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government have not upheld the Constitution concerning treaties that have led to establishing the federal government as a police power within the many states. Each has had a part in enacting, permitting, and enforcing treaties that are not in the best interests of the People, that infringe upon the rights of the People, and that have been made primarily for the purpose of expanding limited military/Admiralty powers of the federal government into the many States, and, hence, establishing plenary control over the People.

This use of treaties, Lady and Gentleman, are, therefore, actions of conspiracy and treason against the people of this nation, and are, as such, acts of silent conquest.