本帖最後由 awepp 於 2017-10-24 20:42 編輯
Katanga Province in the Congo thought she had some private affairs and rights, but the U.N. soon disillusioned her. Quote from S.L. Tribune for September 14,1961: "U.N. Soldiers Take Over in Katanga. U.N. troops seized Katanga's capital, Elisabethville, in a brisk battle Wednesday, and the Congo's central government proclaimed the return of that secessionist province." There is no doubt that the President of the USA and Senate have surrendered certain of our rights and Sovereignty to the U.N., and plan still more. 剛果的加丹加省想要獨立，但很快的聯合國使其幻想破滅。引自1961年9月14日的S.L. Tribune:"聯合國士兵接管了加丹加省。聯合國軍隊在星期三的輕快戰鬥後，奪取了加丹加省首都，伊莉莎白城(現在稱盧本巴希)，然後剛果的中央政府宣佈從分離主義者手上收復該省。"美國總統及參議院毫無疑問地有放棄某些我們的權力及主權給聯合國。然後計劃更多。" Any informed American is aware that ARTICLE IV, Section 4, of the Constitution automatically cancels out any allegiance to the U.N. and its alien one-world Internationalism, the antithesis of Constitutional Americanism founded on Washington's "NO foreign entanglements." And that said republican representative form of government is the exact opposite of the U.N. Charter's Soviet-initiated modifications, restrictions, and reservations in its various "Conventions"which would nullify our Bill of Rights. Stalin, his protege, Alger Hiss, and Russian Communist Pasvolsky figured largely in the writing of the U.N. Charter. 任何知情的美國人都知道憲法第4條第4款，會自動取消任何，對於聯合國及其外來的單一世界國際主義的忠誠(相反於合憲的美國精神，華盛頓創立的"無外國糾纏")，而這說明共和國的政府形式是完全與聯合國相反的。聯合國憲章(由蘇聯發起、修改、限制、保留)在其底下的各種"大會"，將會廢止我們的權力法案。史達林、他的門徒Alger Hiss、俄羅斯共產黨員Pasvolsky是聯合國憲章的主要執筆者。 To assume that a heterogeneous body composed of appointed representatives of foreign governments (some from crude cannibalisticso-called "States" and others, from virulently atheistic Communist States) — which Governments DO NOT REPRESENT "We the AmericanPeople" — could exercise dictation and control over U.S. is monstrous in the extreme. Lawfully or constitutionally, they may not enforce any provisions of the U.N. Charter against us, or take any action whatever affecting the Sovereign Rights of American Citizens. 假設外國政府委任的代表是由混雜的人組成(一些來自粗俗的食人族，稱為所謂的"國家"，還有其他來自惡毒的無神論共產國家)-這些政府們並不代表"我們美國人民"-可以命令及控制聯合國，這是極度怪異的。從合法性及憲法上來說，他們不能對我們執行任何聯合國憲章的規定，或者做出任合影響至高美國公民權力的行為。 Further, the United Nations is not a lawful government in the accepted sense of the term and is not a proper body with which to make a treaty. Actually, the U.N. has NO valid binding treaty-making power — except as the subversive one-worlders try to make it so. Quoting Norton's Constitution of the United States, at page 14: "A treaty is a written contract between two governments (not a motley assembly of unstable tribes, or enslaved peoples calling themselves a 'government') respecting matters of mutual welfare, such as peace, the acouisition of territory, the defining of boundaries, the needs of trade, rights of citizenship..." etc. 此外，聯合國在這術語的意義，公認不是一個合法政府，它不是個能做出條約的適當機構。事實上，聯合國沒有制訂條約的權力-除了那些從事顛覆工作的單一世界份子，試圖讓它如此。引用諾頓(Norton)的美國憲法的第14頁:"條約是個在兩政府間，關於彼此福利的書寫合同(不是個不穩定部落的叢雜集合，或者被奴役的人們自稱為一個'政府')，像是和平、領土獲取、邊界界定、貿易需求、公民權...."等.... And such treaties, even though "legally made,"MAY be abrogated for cause. Quoting ibid, p. 115: "A precedent for thus abrogating a treaty made by the President and approved by the Senate may be found as far back as July 7, 1789, when Congress passed 'An Act to Declare the Treaties heretofore concluded with France no longer obligatory on the United States because they have been repeatedly violated on the part of the French government." So what about all the violations of the treaties or agreements made by the USSR, which dominates the U.N.? The USA is vastly outvoted in this motley aggregation called the United Nations, even as American taxpayers foot most of the bills, which constitutes Constitutionally forbidden confiscation of the citizens' money (property)without just compensation therefore. This is merely communistic confiscation. 而這些甚至是"合法"的條約，也可能因為一些原因被廢止。引用同上，115頁:"一個廢除條約的先例是，早在1789年7月7號，由總統經過參議院准許廢止，當國會通過'宣布條約法'後，過去與法國締結的條約，美國將不在有義務遵守，因為他們已經遭法國政府多次侵犯。"而那這些所有由蘇聯制定的侵犯條約或協議，而它又支配著聯合國呢?美國是巨大的雜色聚合的聯合國家，由美國納稅人支付大多數的帳單，而這組成憲法上禁止沒收公民的錢(財產)而沒支付賠償金。因此，這僅僅是共產式的沒收。 A Treaty made "pursuant to the Constitution"becomes A PART of the LAW OF THE LAND, and should be honored; but it does NOT become "Supreme" or take precedence over nor supersede the Constitution. It is NOT the "Law of the Land" standing alone. And NO Treaty or Executive Agreement is binding on the USA if made by the President alone (as has been done) with the advice and consent of the Senate, nor if it violates the Constitution. 一個"根據憲法"制定的條約，會成為國內法(LAW OF THE LAND)的一部分，而且得到榮耀;但它不會是"至高"或優先於憲法。它不是唯一的"國內法"。而且如果單單由總統制定(已經這麼做)，並且在參議院的建議及同意下的條約或行政協議，都對美國沒有約束力，就算它不違反憲法。 Actually, ARTICLE VI, instead of setting Treaties on high or being a "death trap," is a statement of the SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION and of the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. Lawful Treaties are apart of, but subordinate to, the Constitution for the simple stated provision therein that ALL laws and treaties must be made "in pursuance thereof." 事實上，憲法第六條，如果替代這些形容用語，像來自上級的設定條約，或一個死亡陷阱，那是一個憲法至高地位和國家政府的陳述，合法的條約是從屬憲法的一部分，憲法它的簡單陳述規定，所有法律及條約必須"以此"制定。 Can the "creature" (or a part) become greater than its CREATOR, or the whole??? Some American common sense is necessary in all this blather about the supremacy of treaties, which is promulgated largely by the one-worlders to discredit or diminish the Constitution so they can achieve their own ends. "被創造物"(或部分)能比其創造者，或整體更強大嗎? 條約享有至高地位，這句話如同廢話般，一些美國常識是必須的，這條約頒布大量的單一世界措施，去詆毀或削弱憲法，所以他們能完成他們的目的。 The language and intent of the Constitution and of ARTICLE VI is clear and forthright, and does not admit, in good faith,of any other interpretation. But sadly enough, it is well known that many of our highest judiciary and elected officials — in this era of TREASON,not Reason — do not act in good faith nor in "pursuance of the Constitution." 憲法第六條的意圖是清楚且爽快的，在其他任何解釋裡沒找到承認、真誠。更可悲的是，許多著名的最高法院法官及選舉官員-是背叛、不合理的-行為不真誠也不"根據憲法"。 With reference to fourth paragraph your letter Oct. 12th,Mr. Newby, that the "making of treaties is without limitation,exception or reservation" and that "no treaty has ever been declared unconstitutional or invalidated or repealed by the Courts or Congress in the history of this nation," I think that the foregoing invalidates your statement. 參考你在10月12號的信第4段，紐比先生，"制定條約是沒有限制、例外、保留的"還有"沒有條約在本國曾被宣佈說是違憲或無效，或由法院或國會廢止"我想我上述的已經破除你的陳述了。 And as to ARTICLE VI being a "deathtrap" over which the Constitution gives no control or remedy other than its explicit language in VI regarding the law and treaties: has it occurred to you that the Supreme Court has power and authority to rule on the constitutionality of treaties the same as on the constitutionality of any other law —treaties being merely "part of the Law of the Land"? ARTICLE III, Section 2 explicitly states: "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." 而憲法第六條成為一個"死亡陷阱"，使憲法無法控制或補救，因其第六條上，有法律及條約這明確的語言。最高法院有權去判定合條約的憲性，同樣的對於任何法律的合憲性-這樣有使你發現條約僅僅是"國內法的一部分"?憲法第3條第2款明確規定:"司法權的適用範圍包括：由於本憲法、合眾國法律和根據合眾國權力已締結或將締結的條約而產生的一切普通法和衡平法的案件。" To quote Norton's Constitution of the United States, page 137: "When a case arises in a State court and involves a question of the Constitution, or an Act of Congress, or of a treaty, it is the duty of the court to follow and enforce the National [Constitional] law; for the Constitution explicitly andemphatically requires that the 'judges in every State shall be bound thereby,anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'" Any time that the President and Senate make a treaty with a foreign power (such as the U.N.) which infringes upon or abrogates rights guaranteed citizens of the USA under the Constitution, the Supreme Court can declare such treaty unconstitutional, void, and of no effect. Of course, the present Supreme Court, being composed of political radicals rather than judicial Constitutional experts, is not likely to take such action — unless forced to do so by public opinion and demand. 引用諾頓的美國憲法，137頁:"當國家法院遇到包含憲法的問題，或國會立法，或條約，法院的責任是遵循及執行國家法[憲法];因為憲法明白地且強調地要求"每個州的法官都應受其約束，即使州的憲法和法律中有與之相牴觸的內容。""任何時候總統及參議院與國外力量(像聯合國)做出條約，侵犯或廢除憲法對美國公民所作的權力保證，最高法院可以宣佈這樣子的條約違憲，廢止及無效。當然，現在的最高法院已經被政治激進份子佔據，而不是公正擁護憲法的專家，所以不太可能會採取這樣的行動-直到被輿論要求強迫這麼做為止。 And so, with reference to your statement in printed CHALLENGE for November, 1961, to the effect that, "under ARTICLEII, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution...such treaty (as with the U.N.) can be made without restriction, limitation, exception or reservation irrespective of the fact that it contravenes, violates, infringes or alienates every article of the Constitution. 所以根據你1961年11月的陳述挑戰你:"在憲法第2條第2款第2節....這樣的條約(像跟聯合國)可以不需限制、局限、例外或保留，不管它確實有違反、違背、侵犯、沒收憲法裡的每一條"。 All that is necessary is for the President and Senate to ratify ANY treaty and it is in force." The above article and clause likewise does not stand alone, but must be construed in the light of the entire Constitution. YOUR interpretation is not only to make idiots of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, but to say that regardless of the solemn Presidential oath of allegiance required by ARTICLE III,Section 2a, regardless of the SUPREME SOVEREIGNTY of the U.S. Constitution, and in violation of the explicit language contained in ARTICLE VI, i.e., "THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties...under the authority of the United States...," as well as all authoritative rulings by genuine Constitutional authorities to the effect that anything which contravenes the Constitution of the USA is null and void, including any such acts by the Congress; despite all of the foregoing. I reiterate that YOUR interpretation would claim that there is absolutely NO constitutional safeguard for the American People against TREASONOUS treaties (which "gives aid and comfort to our enemies" as per ARTICLE III, Section 3). "所有需要做的只是總統及參議院批准，然後就生效了。"以上文章及條文也不是獨立的，必須按照整部憲法解釋。你的解釋不僅愚弄了國父及憲法的創立者，也無視憲法第2條第1款第8節要求的總統就職誓詞，無視美國憲法至高主權，侵犯憲法第6條上的明確語言"本憲法和依本憲法所制定的合眾國法律;所有條約....在合眾國權力下...."以及真正憲法所裁斷的全部權威性，以致所有任何違反美國憲法的東西都是無效及廢止的，包含任何國會此類之行為;儘管所有前述的。我重申，你的解釋將宣稱美國民眾對於不忠的條約("這援助及舒適我們敵人"見憲法第3條第3款)，完全無憲法上保障。 YOUR interpretation would give complete IMMUNITY to the maker...of such treaties and would constitute"changing the Constitution by usurpation" in violation of the intent, spirit,AND letter of the Constitution as a whole. 你的解釋將會給那些條約的制訂者，完全的抵抗力，並且構成"透過篡奪改變憲法"，違反憲法的意圖、精神、條文，全部。 The President obviously is NOT a "free agent"by virtue of ARTICLE II, Section 2, clause 2, to make any sort of treaty he would like, but is BOUND DOWN by the chains of the entire Constitution.Nothing else makes any sense. His treaty-making acts are subject to review by the Courts. 總統顯然不是個"自由權力的人"，依照憲法第2條第2款第2節，他可做任何他想做的條約，但受到整個憲法鏈條的束縛。沒有其他理由。他條約制訂行為必須受到法院審查。 True, we SHOULD DEMAND rescinding of the action by both Senate and Harry S. Truman in signing the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 in behalf of the USA. This would put the World on notice that we were once more HONORING OUR OWN CONSTITUTION (CHARTER OF FREEDOM) AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, AND REINSTATING IT TO ITS FORMER PROPER SUPREME POSITION: as well as reclaiming our Sovereignty as an Independent Republic in accordance with our Declaration of Independence. 當然我們應該要求廢除，由參議院及杜魯門所共同簽署的1945年聯合國參與法，這將使世界注意到我們再次榮耀我們憲法(自由憲章)，作為國土上的至高法律，恢復它先前適當的至高位置:以及根據我們的獨立宣言，作為一個獨立共和國，收回我們的主權。 There is not nor ever will be any true Peace, Freedom,Safety or Security for the American People under the alien U.N.Charter. There is "NO SUBSTITUTE" for American Independence. Many men have died and "worms have eaten them" for a far lesser Cause. And so, Mr. Newby, you and I do have one primary objective in view: GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N., AND THE SUBVERSIVE U.N. OUT OF THE USA! Most sincerely yours, Marilyn R. Allen 美國人民在外來的聯合國憲章下，將不會有任何真正和平、自由、安全、保障。美國獨立沒有任何的替代品。許多男人已經死亡，"蠕蟲已經吃了他們"因為一個極小的原因。所以，紐比先生，你跟我看起來有個主要目標:把聯合國趕出美國,當一位在美國的聯合國顛覆份子! 最真誠你的 瑪莉蓮.艾倫 I guess that just about covers the U.N. Charter vs. U.S.sovereignty hoax. No one should ever be able to bullshit you on this issue again. Your job now is to make sure your Congressmen and Senators are educated on this issue. GET TO WORK — NOW! 我猜這就是掩護聯合國憲章對上美國主權的騙術。沒有人曾有能力在你的論點上，多次對你放屁。你現在的工作是確保你眾、參議員在此議題上，有受過教育。 現在馬上行動! ---------------------第13章完--------------------------------- | 
