A farewell to freedom

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen

  • The following is one of many enquiries I have had about the constitutional status of an international agreement reached at Copenhagen, together with my reply.

Dear Lord Monckton, ? I have a question about your assertion concerning the sovereignty of the US being in jeopardy, and your discussion with a certain young lawyer specializing in Constitutional law, as mentioned on a recent radio interview with Alex Jones.

Are you at liberty to give the constitutional expert?s name?  My question is this. How can the Copenhagen Treaty, or any Treaty, trump the US Constitution in light of the case of Reid v. Covert?

M of B replies: No, I can’t give the expert’s name, but he was of sufficient seniority and experience, and he was in exactly the right position on Capitol Hill to give sound advice. It was he who said, bluntly, that the draft Copenhagen Treaty, as it stood at the time of our conversation a couple of months ago, would ?trump? the US Constitution. Those were his very first words when I walked into his office, where every surface, including the floor, was heaped with law books.

There is a very real danger that even an Executive Agreement, signed by Obama and then supported by a simple majority of both Houses, might be held by the presently-constituted Supreme Court to have the status of a Treaty even without ratification by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, on the ground that the trend in international law is towards the resolution of such subjects as international environmental impacts by Treaty rather than by domestic law.

One should be extremely careful, therefore. An abundance of caution is the correct approach when negotiating international agreements, particularly when the financial and political consequences are predictably dire.

Reid v. Covert may well establish the position at domestic law, but the position at international law is governed by the Vienna Convention on the Interpretation of International Treaties, which says two important things. First, treaties mean what they say they mean. Secondly, in the event of any conflict of Treaty terms with domestic law, the Treaty terms prevail.

It would, of course, be the height of bad faith for any nation to enter into an international agreement with its fingers crossed behind its back, intending to rely upon provisions of domestic law that purport to make that agreement null and void. That’s the simple, common-sense point that too many soi-disant experts too often overlook.

Of course, the word ?Treaty? is no longer being used in discussions here in Copenhagen. Now, all the talk is of a ?political agreement?, which may lead to a binding treaty later ? perhaps in Mexico a year hence.

The danger is that, even if nothing else is agreed at Copenhagen, the 192 countries who have come here will consent to what has been the UN?s ambition all along ? namely, the establishment of a world government.

Of course, the word ?government?, which revealingly appeared twice in an early draft of the Copenhagen agreement, has now been dropped, after massive and hostile publicity, particularly in Canada and the United States, whose peoples wish to remain free, self-governing, and prosperous.

Now, the term is ?institutional framework?. However, all the new bureaucratic bodies ? some 700 of them ? that will collectively constitute the world government are still very much in place in the current draft agreement.

The UN knows full well that the pressure on the governments here to agree something or anything is very strong. And it will quietly say, ?Why don?t we all agree to carry forward the institutional framework?? Of course, that will include lavish funding by Western nations for the new many-tentacled bureaucracy that ? if the UN gets its way ? will in future rule the world.

And what is saddest is that it is the young people of the free West that are clamoring for the destruction of the very political system that gives them their freedom to demonstrate. They will learn, of course, but ? if the UN gets what it wants, as it still may ? just a little too late.

Democracy, freedom, and prosperity were fun, while they lasted.