It is my firm conviction that this Nation cannot survive as a Republic as long as we are shackled to an international organization by a treaty which supersedes our Constitution. As stated in the Declaration of Independence:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the law of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Three things need to be pointed out here: (1) Treaties do not supersede the U.S. Constitution and if there are provisions of a treaty that do, they must be challenged in a court of law immediately; (2) Once we prevail in a court of law to have the UN Treaty declared null and void, the U.S. owes nothing to the UN and in fact, they will owe us all back monies illegally given to them over the years; (3) It is my opinion and there is a great deal of historical material on this: Executive Orders issued by a sitting President carry no force or weight of law outside the Executive Branch.

This 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.

When the UN Charter was submitted to the Senate for ratification, great stress was laid upon Article 2, subparagraph 7, which states:

'Nothing contained in the present charger shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter.'

I don't believe that the U.S. Senate would have ratified this treaty without relying on the above quoted paragraph. However, this paragraph has been completely and constantly ignored over the past 16 years and every organization, commission, and covenant flowing out of the UN Charter has been for the sole purpose of intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the member nations as well as the several States of our own Union, completely destroying the sovereignty of each State to legislate in contravention of the treaty provisions....

I would like to define the issue a little more clearly here with two U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. October 1956, Opinion of Black, J.:

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and that of the states. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."

This court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."