Bob Bird: Of treaties and the U.S. Constitution



            “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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state notwithstanding.”

So reads Article VI of the U. S. Constitution. Right now, the very sovereignty (which means “no higher authority”) of the United States is at risk, and Article VI is at the center of it.

The traitorous and lying dolt currently exercising the powers of the presidency, is negotiating a deal with the World Health Organization through an “executive agreement” over health powers that would have America submit to the dictates of global “health” bureaucrats. 

And, as usual, the fight of “original intent” v. “current interpretation” continues to rear its ugly head, causing disunity and confusion. Any fair reading of American history would tell a careful historian that the federal Constitution was never much of a unifying factor, and right from the beginning. The fact that the union of states endured numerous crises, both before and after the failed War for Southern Independence, is proof enough that the document’s interpretation, whether proper or phony, could lead to great trouble. 

And, of course, the misnamed “civil war” itself demonstrated that this disagreement of interpretation had the ability to lead to massive self-destruction still unmatched in our bloody history. After all, the South, along with many northern politicians, editors and even three former presidents, contended that secession was perfectly constitutional, and Lincoln just the opposite. 

A fair reading of Article VI would know the operative phrase: the laws which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution. Ergo, laws made in defiance of the Constitution would be null and void, something Jefferson, Madison and Calhoun certainly understood with the doctrine of state nullification, which all three famously advocated.

But consider the obvious absurdity: would any constitution write into itself a mode of self-destruction, one that would forfeit the sovereignty not only of the federal but the state governments? And at the time (in 1788) when states were justly jealous of their sovereignty and fearful of a newly created central power?

What then, was the “original intent” of Article VI?

In the Treaty of Paris that ended the War for Independence, the British were extremely generous, not contending ownership of the lands west of the Appalachians, that they had won by conquest in the French and Indian War in the 1760s. The western American boundary was to extend to the Mississippi River.

In exchange the Americans conceded that the properties seized from American Loyalists (Tories) by state governments and torchlight mobs would be compensated to the survivors and their estates. Certainly, popular wisdom completely understood that to keep such neighbors in their midst would be directly harmful to not only the cause of independence, but to their own peace and safety. But just as certainly, the loss of the Loyalists’ property rights, if not their very lives, was also unjust.

This, however, led to tremendous difficulties. Many states refused to be party to such a compensation. Not all confiscations were authorized, but a result of mob rule. The states had already been greatly pressed, in blood and treasure, to win independence, and compensating the losing side in a war seemed ridiculous. In fact, the people would certainly resist local taxation done for this object, and so states wrote into their constitutions, charters and laws the guarantees that no such thing would be allowed to happen.

And how could it ever be collected, anyway? Many Tories had gone west into the Ohio Valley and were eager to keep their previous loyalties to the crown a secret. Others had found refuge in maritime Canada and even England. How would they be identified? Who were their rightful descendants, entitled to estate compensation? And where were they now?

The failure to compensate Loyalists contributed to the next war with England in 1812. Because of this failure, the British — playing tit-for-tat — kept possession of American soil and the forts in the Great Lakes, trading with the western tribes, and ostensibly using the wealth from this resource to compensate the estates of the Loyalists, a full generation after independence.

Thus, Article VI was a noble, if failed, effort for the federal government to abide its treaty obligations contracted under the Articles of Confederation. It was a signal sent to the potentates of Europe that America would be a responsible member of the world community. Just as likely, the federal government knew all along that it would never be enforced, but as the Constitution acknowledged that all acts and laws made under the Articles would be honored, it had to do so with treaties.

It would be bad enough if the health powers were surrendered to an international entity even after a treaty was approved by the U.S. Senate, which requires 67 of the 100 members. In a culture that still possessed common sense, the states would rightly resist such a nefarious treaty, and right down to counties and municipalities, where the authentic health powers exist. But now local government has been compromised by the federal inflation purse, with a trillion dollars’ worth of “free” money that they are fully aware has become a vital source of revenue. 

With this confidence, even if unfounded, the charlatans in Washington would tell us that a mere “executive agreement” would have the same power, simply because, well, that is how the American presidency has morphed into a dictatorship.

The Covid Capers are not over. We face a looming nightmare of the first order.

Bob Bird is chair of the Alaskan Independence Party and the host of a talk show on KSRM radio, Kenai.

Bob Bird: Morphing of the pro-life movement


  1. We are in post Constitutional America. The Constitution doesn’t matter to Washington, especially Democrats.
    And at least 1/2 of the population is just fine with that.

    Probably the only way we ever get back to being a Constitutional Republic is the way we got there initially. Overthrowing our European rulers and their American counterparts.

  2. The US Constitution was primarily an instrument to prevent the government tyranny over the individual and what is happening is the very thing the document was designed to prevent. The destruction of our monetary system under the guise of responding to a virus is the primary tool being used to make us dependent on an entity that earns nothing, makes nothing, and is a complete parasite on the individual. Anyone that did pursue, or is still pursuing, the “free” money is complicit in the perpetuation of their own enslavement.

  3. I assume he’s talking about the Constitution for the united States of America, the 1787 equity contract – land jurisdiction, and not the Constitution of the United States of America 1789 – sea jurisdiction, or the Constitution of the United States 1790 designed for the foreign Municipal government. Lincoln was an attorney and could not fill the position of American President because of the titles of nobility clause in the 1787 Constitution, so he was just the president of a company called the United States. The Declaration of Interdependence of the Governments in The United States 1937 is now the controlling document.

  4. The U.S. Constitution was primarily an instrument to establish power for a federal government. Ask yourself: What does the term “Anti-Federalist” mean….. – M.John

  5. Blah blah blah Bob, when are you going to call out Bjorkman, the lesser Crash to your Mike Porcaro, for his bill to bankrupt the state with defined benefit plans for state employees?

  6. I do not consent to the unravelling of “this” US Constitution ensuing or otherwise. Anything else in conflict with this (1776) US Constitution is void for effect from inception to date and is a mere vapor, a mist disappearing various and sundry perpetual “emergencies” foamed up everywhere notwithstanding. Sorry not sorry.

  7. Every attempted contravention of this US Constitution is a catarrh regardless of various, sundry perpetual foaming emergency. If (for instance) Congress shall make no law who euphemistically speaking does one think one is?

  8. Alaska, like all ratified states within the United States is a state of being rather than a state of emercency.

  9. Bob Bird,
    One needs to recall that Constitution is a cage built by our Founders to restrain Federal Power. Given that truth, it in inconceivable that a ” Treaty” could somehow remove any of the original 10 amendments.
    Clearly this tripe would not wash a couple generations back. It took 70 plus years of tweaking with how History and Social Studies are taught in Publik Schrools to dumb down the populace to the point where they would swallow this idiocy.

Comments are closed.