�
by Patrick Wood
June 2007
from
AugustReview Website
�
Ed. Note:
If an external authority
dictates certain constraints upon your actions and
powers, then you are not sovereign; the external
authority doing the dictating is the real sovereign.
Hugo Grotius, the eminent Dutch legal theorist of
the 17th century, whose writings many of the Founding
Fathers greatly admired, put it this way:
"That power is called
sovereign whose actions are not subject to the legal
control of another, so that they cannot be rendered
void by the operation of another human will."
|
�
To
the global elite, the meaning of the
phrase �Rule of Law� has been redefined according to a global
philosophy that does not embrace the Sovereignty of nation-states
nor the U.S. Constitution.
A perfect example is John B. Bellinger, the Legal Adviser to the
Secretary of State and the principal adviser on all domestic and
international law matters to the Department of State, the Foreign
Service, and the diplomatic and consular posts abroad. He is also
the principal adviser on legal matters relating to the conduct of
foreign relations to other agencies and, through the Secretary of
State, to the President and the National Security Council.
Mr. Bellinger is the consummate globalist lawyer. His title of a
mere Legal Advisor disarms the fact that his staff consists of 171
highly educated globalist lawyers, along with their supporting
staff.
Further, Bellinger cut his legal teeth with Wilmer Cutler &
Pickering from 1991 to 1995. The late Lloyd Cutler, a founding
member of the elite and globalist Trilateral Commission, also
founded the law firm that bears his name. Since 1973 WCP has had
continuous representation within
the Trilateral Commission
membership, and has played a major role in applying the global
agenda to courts around the world.
So, when Bellinger speaks, he speaks with authority for the global
elite. This includes his current bosses, Secretary of State Rice and
President Bush.
Bellinger declared the purpose of his speech, The United States and
International Law, which he delivered at The Hague on June 6, 2007:
�My goal here is to clear up some
common myths and misperceptions - including that international
law is not truly binding in our system.�
This sets the tone for a revealing look
at how the traditional concept of �rule of law� has been reborn into
a globalist context. The magnitude of this new body of law is seen
in Bellinger�s comments:
�Every year we negotiate and
conclude hundreds of international agreements and treaties. We
entered into 429 last year alone� And just recently, this
Administration put forward a priority list of over 35 treaty
packages that we have urged the Senate to approve soon,
including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.�
According to Bellinger, as a treaty or
agreement is negotiated, the question is considered,
�Will we be in
a position to implement, or will there be complications because of
domestic law?�
In a subsequent statement, Bellinger tackles his international
critics:
�I have heard people say that the
United States, and this Administration in particular, does not
regard international law as "real law" - in effect, that we cast
international obligations aside when they would interfere with
our immediate interests. To the contrary��
The stark implication is that
international law is being practiced and enforced in U.S. courts,
regardless of pre-existing U.S. laws to the contrary. If domestic
law is just too contrary, then strike down domestic law!
Here is a case-in-point.
In the so-called Avena decision, the International Court of Justice
ordered the U.S. to review the cases of 51 Mexican nationals who had
been duly convicted of atrocious capital crimes, including the
murder of children.
Bellinger notes,
�The ICJ judgment required us to
disregard the normal rules of procedure for our criminal trials.
The President, acting on the advice of the Secretary of State,
nonetheless decided to require each State involved to give the
51 convicts a new hearing.�
Ironically, the President�s home state
of Texas was the first state to be challenged. The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals ruled that the President,
�had no power to intervene
in its affairs, even to obtain compliance with an order of the ICJ.�
(This is a proper interpretation of States Rights, by the way, but
are the President�s directives an attempted violation of the
Constitution�s Separation of Powers?)
So how does President Bush respond to Texas� rebuff? According to
Bellinger,
�This Administration has gone to the
Supreme Court of the United States to reverse this decision. We
expect a ruling from that Court this time next year.�
The clear message to Texas and the other
states where these convicted criminals are incarcerated is,
�We will hammer you until you comply
with what WE say is right!�
If the President prevails in the Supreme
Court, you can be certain that taxpayers will pay for all the
attendant legal fees to re-open these 51 cases, not to mention the
enormous cost of launching a Supreme Court case against Texas.
Bellinger is not the first or only globalist with this unorthodox
view of �rule of law.� In fact, it�s not new at all. President
George H.W. Bush (also a member of the
Trilateral Commission)
delivered a speech in 1990 and stated,
�We have before us the opportunity
to forge for ourselves and for future generations, a
New World
Order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle,
governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we
will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order, an order
in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role
to fulfill the promising vision of the U.N. founders.�
When Bush, Sr. says �when we are
successful, and we will be,� there was no hesitation, pause or
uncertainty in his voice
On June 14, 2007, during a hot debate on immigration policy between
White House spokesman Tony Snow and nationally syndicated talk-show
host Laura Ingraham, Snow stated that the three common goals of
President Bush�s immigration policy are �Secure the border, restore
the rule of law and make sure citizenship means something.�
For the purpose of this discussion, the phrase �restore the rule of
law" jumps out. This is an official talking point of the Bush
Administration, but its meaning and relevance are never explained.
How would this phrase be interpreted in light of the above
discussion?
First, if one is talking about U.S. law, then �restoring the rule of
law� is an issue of enforcement, not legislative action. If existing
immigration laws are not enforced, why would the passing of new laws
increase the odds of enforcement of those new laws? Of course, it
wouldn�t.
Secondly, �restoring� implies that we have fallen from a previous
period when immigration laws were correctly enforced. The
progression of poor enforcement has been clear enough, but that
progression has come at the hands of poor policy from the same
people who now promise us that new laws will fix everything.
Rather, if Bush�s �rule of law� is the same as the one referenced by
his father in 1991, then it refers to the body of international law,
rules and regulations as promulgated by
the United Nations, the
World Trade Organization and buried in a myriad of free trade
treaties and agreements.
If immigration laws are passed in 2007, they will undoubtedly
contain, even if hidden in footnotes, elements of new international
laws that have been historically contrary to U.S. law.
�
Otherwise,
If the ICJ�s Avena decision can be enforced by using the Supreme
Court as a sledgehammer, then why not browbeat the U.S. Congress
into enacting new labor and immigration policy that didn�t
previously exist?
This writer is reminded of Trilateralist Richard Gardner�s 1974
treatise titled �The Hard Road to World Order� in which he declared
that the new world order would be better achieved, in lieu of a
frontal attack, by �an end run around national sovereignty, eroding
it piece by piece��
Indeed. The next time you hear the phrase �rule of law� dripping
from the lips of the globally elite, don�t take any comfort that
they might actually have the best interest of our country at heart.
�
In fact, if Bellinger gets his way, we are all in a lot of trouble.
�
� |