The August Review

By Patrick Wood

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.

Trilateral Commission

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, why would the Administration pull out all the political stops and risk losing 86 percent of its public support? Why stress over creating laws that already exist?

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.

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." 

 © Patrick Wood, The August Review

---

Link this article to these popular Social Bookmark Sites