Profound Revolution Chapter 1 - The World Constitution

A study of the United Nations Charter is a difficult but completely absorbing task. It contains the most a­mazing provisions, some of them so fantastic that the student must wonder what manner of men sat in the United States Senate in 1945 when this document was ratified. The admitted fact that the members of the Senate were not provided with copies of the lethal docu­ment they were considering may have been responsible for the obvious failure of the Senate to know what they were doing. Of course, the propaganda barrage which had drenched the nation for months was still in full cry. It would have been very bad politics indeed to have re­fused to ratify the Charter,—the “Last Great Hope for Mankind.”

The Senate considered the Charter for only four days, while the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, spawned by the Charter, occupied the Congress for nearly six months. This might be said to shed a little light on a situation now exposed and resembling a dead mackerel in the moonlight.

What, for instance, was in the minds of Senators who ratified Article 25 of the Charter?

ARTICLE 25: "Member nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

That is all there is of Article 25. No conditions---no reservations, WE just agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council no matter what they are. The business about the "PRESENT CHAR­TER" must be noted. It indicates that somebody had in mind other Charters to come later. However, the record is clear that, the UNers had no intention, from the very beginning, of being bound by the "Present Charter."

This Charter provided that there would be a VETO in the Security Council. The Congressman of today assures the people that the Senate of 1945 would never have ratified the Charter without the protection of American interests, guaranteed (?) by the VETO. There was not much protection here either, as we shall see, as the United States Delegates, by the terms of their oaths of office, are sworn to represent the interests of the United NATIONS only. They would veto ONLY when the best interests of the U. N. required it.

The busy beavers of the U. N. left nothing to chance. They had to get rid of the veto or get around it and this they did. Accordingly, in 1950, Mr. John Foster Dulles appeared before the General Assembly with a thing which he dubbed the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution. It had nothing to do with "uniting" and even less to do with "peace". It was a scheme to per­mit the General Assembly to order military actions,—to by-pass the Security Council and the veto. This res­olution was adopted by the General Assembly and ef­fectively put an end to the "present Charter" of 1945.

This fact has been recognized by the government in Washington and by the World Government of the United Nations. Under the Charter, the U. N. was re­quired by Article 109 to review and revise or amend the Charter on the tenth year (1955) if it had not been amended before that time. Consequently, in 1954 the U. N. sent to the Senate a list of proposed Charter a­mendments.

This list was assigned to a special sub-committee of the Senate for study and recommendation and the sub­committee report was as follows:

Staff Study No. 2 for the Sub-Committee on the United Nations Charter of the Committee on For­eign Relations, U. S. Senate, 83rd Congress. 2nd Session, 1954:

"We are by no means examining the charter that was drafted in San Francisco in 1945. We are ex­amining the charter of 1954 as it had, been ampli­fied by custom and usage, resolutions of the various UN organs and treaties, like the Atlantic Pact which are consistent with the charter and have a heavy impact on the U. N. system.

"If we should proceed now to consider amendments to the old charter rather than the new, it would be very much like a surgeon planning a major opera­tion on the basis of a diagnosis made 9 years ago."

There you have it. At the end of nine years the Charter was found to have [been] violated out of business by the U. N. itself. There was not enough left, of the Charter, ratified by the United States Senate, to amend. The U. N. and the Washington Government still recog­nized the binding properties of Article 109. Each year Article 109 is on the agenda and each year the obliga­tion to review and amend the charter is "postponed."

In adopting the Charter of the United Nations as a TREATY, the United States Senate had elevated the Charter of the U. N. to a position where it superseded the Constitution of the United States. There is a loop­hole in the Constitution of the United States,—Article 6, Paragraph 2, which asserts:

"The Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Con­stitution of laws of any State to the contrary not­withstanding."

It is not for us to argue that this Article does not mean what it says.

Now here we find a sub-committee of the United States Senate reporting to the Foreign Relations Com­mittee of the Senate that this Charter, which the Sen­ate had ratified, had been abolished by the activities of the United Nations and its staff. Why did not the Sen­ate, right then and there, begin a REVIEW of the Char­ter and the subsequent actions which had wiped it out of existence? Why have they failed and refused to REVIEW it to this day?

To any close observer of the situation prevailing in Washington, where the United Nations is in ques­tion, it is evident that the whole Congress lives in TER­ROR of any involvement in United Nations affairs. Men who will stand up to anything else pertaining to the national welfare, cringe and run from any discussion of the United Nations. The sons of their States have died in U. N. wars and continue to die, with no relief in sight. Congress still refuses to question the U. N.— the outlaw organization operating outside its lawful Charter almost from its inception.

The position of, official Washington, with regard to this TREATY and the thousands of other TREATIES ratified under the U. N. auspices, is well stated by John Foster Dulles, then Secretary of State and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, before a regional meeting of the American Bar Association at Louisville, Kentucky, April 12, 1952:

"The treaty-making power is an extraordinary pow­er liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and they also make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than or­dinary laws, for Congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform. to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. Trea­ties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across rights given to the people by their Constitutional Bill of Rights."

It matters not whether we agree with this state­ment of the former Secretary of State. The whole Federal Government has accepted it and are operating under this concept.

The Charter of the United Nations was not, by any means, the end of the U. N. treaty-making operation. Long before the San Francisco Conference the UNers had been engaged in forming corporations with char­ters of most dubious legality. When the Senate adopted the United^, Nations charter as a treaty, the doors were opened for a flood of treaties. The charters of the sub­versive organizations, many of which became "Special­ized Agencies" of the United Nations were, one by one, sent to the Senate for ratification. Adopted as treat­ies, they all became Law of the Land.

There were a few Senators at the time who had a­greed to meet at odd hours, usually while the other members were at dinner, and ratify these treaties by votes of one or several Senators. This was possible due to another loop-hole in the Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) which enables the Senate by vote of two of the members PRESENT, to ratify a treaty. This treaty making by a few Senators continued until several thousand such treaties had been ratified. Then a full two-thirds of the Members of the Senate joined in a resolution to amend the Constitution (the Bricker A­mendment) to put a stop to such treaty making.

The President and his whole Administration opposed the Bricker Amendment and brought such pres­sure to bear on the members of the Senate that the resolution was defeated by a single vote. The Presi­dent did, however, agree that there would be no more such treaty making, and perhaps there was none. There is more than one way to "skin a cat,” and the UNers had some of the best skinners in the business. Law by resolution would replace treaty law and be much more effective. Resolution law would by-pass both Senate and veto.

The fact that the United Nations operators had no intention of abiding by any provisions of the Charter, unless it suited them to do so, is best illustrated in a speech delivered by the American Ambassador, Warren Austin, to the General Assembly at its very first meet­ing.

The reader is about to be introduced to the "se­mantics" of the United Nations and its official inter­preters as they start right out to re-write the Charter by interpretation. Under the terms of the Charter ALL THE POWER was in the Security Council. The General Assembly was purely an advisory organ. This set-up was not exactly "Democratic" for only eleven nations would be represented on the Security Council at any one time. But whether "Democratic" or not, this was the UN Charter ratified by the United States Senate, and presumably binding on the United States and all other Member Nations and upon the United Nations it­self.