Arizona republican., 1920-02-05
CHANGES THE FORM OF GOVERN MENT OF THE UNITED STATES

the representatives of the people l themselves, viz: the congress; the president cannot bind the United
 States (except by special authority from congress). The ambassadors
 consults, ministers or other officers 1 cannot bind the United States under
 the constitution.
 The power of the congress, by its
 vote to bind the United States, ii
 derives from it's original possessors (viz.: the states and the people)
 through their constitution, and there
 fore there is no legal means other | than the method provided for by the
 states and the people themselves in their constitution that can take this power from the congress and give il
 to any one else, much less to any one
 man who is to sit on foreign board
 and by his vote to bind the United 1 States.
 l The possessors of this power (viz.
 the states and the people), provided. at
 the time of the formation of our fed eral government, the only legal method | to change the form of our government | viz: by a constitutional amendment, l to-wit: That the congress (the states
 and peoples representatives) should
 pass by a two-thirds affirmative vote
 a bill incorporating the changes of government desired. After this bill has
 been passed by the congress. without any action whatever of the president, and after three fourths of all the states | by favorable vote concur theirin, the
 same becomes legally the law of the 1 land.
 Kindly note these two significant | facts, that the president is not to sign
 such bill or be a party to the matter at all, and that it is the only one of all the functions of the government requiring a three-fourths affirmative vote.
 Such bill would have to provide for the introduction into our government of
 a new function therein. It would have to create an ambassador supreme" who would have the power to bind our government to war, to the supply of u oops, to raise vast funds of money for war purposes, and as the federal con- stitution (by-laws of the states and people) distinctly now vests this power iii the congress only such a bill would also have to provide that the powers Of congress would be abrogated to that extent
 In all fairness ask you what possible chance would there be of such an amendment passing oy a two-thirds vote even the house and senate, to say nothing of being passed by three fourths of all the states?
 The president cannot by treaty, even by the consent and favorable vote of the senate, legally transfer this power from the congress, and if the treaty should so pass the senate, the supreme court of the United States, must un- doubtedly declare same unconstitu- tional.
 The supreme court, through Chief Justice Marshalrs celebrated decision early in the life of our government, established for all time the principles, never until then fully acknowledged in fact actually denied by the political party then in power-that the consti- tuition was, as it itself declared, the supreme law of the land, to the pro- vision of which all laws of congress and of the states must conform-and that the supreme court was the ulti- mate and indisputable judge of such conformity.
 Today, as in 1900 the supreme court (not the political party which at pres ent disputes the question: will be the ultimate and indisputable judge, if it is in conformity to the constitution for the reaty-making branches of the gov ernmet to make treaty which vitiates and changes, contrary to the provisions thereof, the very constitution and gov ernment itself. Article VI of the con- stitution reads
 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, bound thereby. anything in the consti- tuition or laws of any state to the con- trary notwithstanding.
 The framers of our constitution con- sidered the function of a treaty limited to agreements and understandings with a foreign state, and in nowise or un- der no circumstances to have anything to do with a change in the form of our own domestic government, which they had so amply covered by the constitu- ton itself with it's numerous checks, provisions and safeguards. Note that all laws of congress that are in accord ance with the constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, but to be legally the supreme law of the land they must be in pursuance of the con- stitution; similarly all treaties made "Under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land" but to be legal they must also be made under the legal authority of the United States or in other words treaty created to do something outside it's proper legal function, the opera ton of which would nullify the most important and best safeguarded pro- vision of all the provisions of the nstitution-eQuivalent to overthrow | ing the constitution and hence the gov not have been created 1 by the legal authority of the United | States and would undoubtedly have | to be declared unconstitutional by the | supreme court. If this were not so, | he treaty making powers of the gov (the president and senate) | could enter into a treaty with England, pr even with a small country like Nica- -agua, or with a country hostile to the United States like Mexico, to bring | tbout any change in our form of gov such as for instance to elect | senator's for two years instead of six, ,r to establish a monarchial form of instead of our republic, md the same would be the supreme aw of the 1and-notwithstandin that uch a treaty would destroy our repub- ican government itself. The mere con- emplation of such possibility reveals hc complete absurdity of a constitu- |