The Battle of New York

"What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" Thomas Jefferson asked. Today we search for an answer.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in the custody of US DEA agents

The future of the United States is being fought in a courtroom in New York City, where America itself is on trial. If the courts do anything other than dismiss the manufactured charges against the kidnapped President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, then the last bastion of Constitutional legitimacy will have fallen in the face of the dictatorship that has become the Presidency of Donald Trump.

While the world struggles to come to grips with the brazen abduction of the sitting head of a sovereign nation by the armed forces of the United States, operating with zero legitimacy either in terms of international law or domestic legal authority, the American people struggle with their own shortcomings as citizens and—frankly speaking—members of the human race, cheering on this wonton act of aggression as if it defines who and what we are as a collective, not comprehending that our cheers are really the screams of a dying dream of a Constitutional Republic once known as the United States of America.

Today the dream has become a nightmare, and the vestiges of democratic freedoms we once ostensibly held near and dear to our hearts have been replaced by an orgy of narcissistic excess as Donald Trump, a modern-day Caligula transformed into a walking, talking cult of personality, has turned the American democratic experiment, founded as it was in the notion of the rule of law, into an open air coliseum where might makes right, where strength supersedes reason, and where the ideal of the citizen has been replaced by the gladiator, whose only purpose is to go forth and kill for the pleasure of his demented rulers.

Let me be as clear as possible—if you cheer any aspect of what Donald Trump (I deign to call him President, as that attaches the notion of democratic norms and values, and constitutional checks and balances, which no longer exist in America today) has done in Venezuela, then you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution. There is nothing about what the United States has done, is doing, and plans to do regarding Venezuela that can be described as legitimate.

I pause for a moment to remind my fellow American citizens that the United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, and that this Charter has been ratified by the United States Senate, granting the Charter the status of the law of the land under the Constitution of the United States. Article II, Clause 2, states that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

Chief Justice John Marshall

As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1829: “A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is infra-territorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument. In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the court.”

Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, in an 1884 ruling, expanded upon these concepts, declaring “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations, and depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the honor and the interest of the governments which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international reclamation and negotiation, which may lead to war to enforce them. With this, judicial courts have nothing to do.”

But a treaty may also confer private rights on citizens or subjects of the contracting powers which are of a nature to be enforced in court of justice, and which, in cases otherwise cognizable in such courts, furnish rules of decision. The Constitution of the United States makes the treaty, while in force, a part of the supreme law of the land in all courts where such rights are to be tried.

But in this respect, so far as the provisions of a treaty can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of the country, they are subject to such acts as Congress may pass for their enforcement, modification, or repeal.

Four points emerge from these decisions.

First and foremost, a treaty is the supreme law of the land. While a treaty is in force, it has the same weight as all other laws of the land.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio

Keep this in mind the next time you hear Secretary of State Marco Rubio, or any other member of the Trump administration, dismiss the United Nations or the precepts of international law founded in the United Nations Charter. In doing so, he—and they—are belittling the very Constitution they swore an oath to uphold and defend. They insult America, and all Americans, when they do so, because they last time I checked, we were still signatories to the UN Charter, the Senate ratification still holds, and as such the Charter is the supreme law of the land here in the United States, on par with freedom of speech and gun rights.

Second, a treaty, in so far as it is enforced, depends on the “honor and interest” of the government. Since implementation of a treaty tends to fall under the realm of executive responsibilities, this means that the viability of any treaty relationship is contingent upon the honor and interest of the chief executive—the President of the United States. Historically speaking, Presidents usually have a grasp of the responsibility of office that has been thrust upon them, and act in a manner which reflects the fact that the recognize that they are but temporary wards of a position mandated by the Constitution, the preservation of which supersedes the desires of the individual. A President should do nothing that diminishes the office he or she holds and always function in a manner reflecting the need to preserve the integrity of the office and of the nation it serves.

Honor and interest.

Honorable conduct requires adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct, and to fulfill an obligation or keep an agreement.

President Donald Trump

Donald Trump is incapable of behaving with honor, because there is no law, obligation or agreement which he will honor.

Interest is usually calculated in terms of the advantage or benefit accrued to a person or group; for a President of the United States, the only interest he or she can have is that of the nation as a whole; there is simply no room for personal interests when it comes to the affairs of the state.

Donald Trump, in a manner befitting his extreme narcissistic personality, acts only when his personal interests—political and/or financial—are at stake. He has subordinated the good of the nation to his singular person, replacing the esteemed office of the presidency with a sickening cult of personality.

Under Donald Trump, America is incapable of acting with honor or in the interest of the nation.

Third, to the extent that any treaty or other national obligation which reaches the status of supreme law of the land, can be modified and/or obviated, it can only done through an act of the legislature, or in this case the United States Congress, which must acts delineating the manner in which treaties can be enforced, modified or repeal. Simply put, neither the Executive nor the Judicial Branch of government have any authority to interpret treaty obligations of the United States. This is the sole prerogative of the legislative branch of government, which in the case of Venezuela, has been asleep at the wheel. Not only has it allowed itself to be neutered regarding its constitutional obligations requiring authorization of the use of military force, but it now has made itself meaningless when it comes to the issue of treaty obligations.

Void of any meaningful action on the part of Congress (and none has been forthcoming), the Executive Branch has virtual carte blanche when it comes to military action and other executive branch activities related to such.

Here is the kicker: void of legislative action, the courts have no jurisdiction regarding treaty obligations.

None.

There is zero judicial cognizance regarding treaty obligations, which are the supreme law of the land, unless Congress has passed legislation which somehow impinges upon these obligations as a matter of law.

Which in the case of the UN Charter, Congress has not.

The United States illegally kidnapped the sovereign leader of a sovereign state, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(4) of which stipulates that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

There is zero legal authority under international law that allows the United States to arrest a sovereign country’s leader void of any cognizable claim of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter (which the United States has not made) or mandated by a resolution from the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which does not exist.

In short, the United States has no jurisdiction when it comes to either Nicolas Maduro or his wife, both of whom were illegally abducted from their residence in Caracas by US Special Operations personnel.

District Judge Alvin Hellerstein

Today Nicolas Maduro and his wife sit in judgement before Alvin Hellerstein, a 92-year-old US district court judge for the Southern District of New York. Hellerstein graduated from Columbia University Law School before serving as a lawyer in the US Army. He then went into private practice, before being nominated to his current position by President Bill Clinton in 1998.

Hellerstein oversaw the 2020 indictment of Maduro which serves as the basis of his current prosecution. But the indictment did not consider the nature of Maduro’s abduction, which is manifestly illegal. Legal procedures appear to matter to Hellerstein, who last year blocked the Trump administration from deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members without a court hearing.

The Manhattan courtroom where Hellerstein will preside over what looks to be a lengthy hearing on whether Maduro and his wife are to stand trial has become the last stand of American democracy. The US Constitution envisions a government protected by a system of checks and balances, where three equal but separate branches of government ensure that the letter of the law as enshrined in the Constitution is adhered to in a manner consistent with the intent of the founding fathers.

Today we see the legislative branch in tatters, powerless before the weight of a narcissistic madman who promotes power above reason, strength above law. America functions as a literal dictatorship, where the executive branch enjoys unfettered power and privilege beyond that ever envisioned by the founding fathers—and indeed in direct contravention of the intent of the founding fathers when writing the constitution, designed as it was to reign in executive overreach.

The last hope for the Constitutional Republic that was the United States of America is in the hands of an aging justice who is himself conflicted on the matter, having issued the indictment which was used to bring Maduro before his court.

Justice, it is said, is blind.

Anyone who has experience with the US judicial system knows this to be a lie.

Justice, as it exists in America, is designed from the ground up to preserve the status quo, often sacrificing concepts of individual justice for the “greater good”—with the greater good being defined by executive power.

Despite the inequities of justice which flourishes at the working end of the judicial system, the Federal Courts have long served as a breakwater against blatant Constitutional violations by the US government.

The Maduro case represents such an instance.

If the Trump administration is not checked here, then there is nothing—nothing—that can restrain the excesses that will accrue as the narcissist in chief and his cabal of cronies rewrite the rules under which the US interfaces with the rest of the world. Gone is any notion of law, whether treaty of contract based.

“Might makes right” will be the new law of the land, executed abroad and implemented here at home without fear of domestic consequence, and in total disregard for how the rest of the world sees us.

America will transition away from any notion of Constitutional Republic, into an advanced state of imperial decline similar to that seen in the latter stages of the fall of Rome.

The Roman Emperor Caligula

Trump is the new Caligula.

And we Americans little more than the Roman mob, waiting for our emperor to appease our base desires with blood, food, and base entertainment which assuages the physical needs at the expense of the moral and intellectual.

The Constitution will have been rendered null and void, and with it the legitimacy of the United States as a nation state.

I finish this essay by quoting from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States of America, and the author of our Declaration of Independence. In doing I respectfully remind the reader that the United States will celebrate 250 years of independence this coming July 4^th.

I remember the bicentennial well. I was living in Turkey, where my father had been stationed as an Air Force officer. The United States had imposed sanctions on Turkey the year before, in 1975, because of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. In retaliation, the Turkish government forbade the flying of the American flag over the small military base that served as the center of American cultural life.

On the 4^th of July the tiny American community—a few hundred strong—gathered at the base to celebrate our nation’s 200^th birthday. We held a softball tournament and enjoyed a delicious BBQ. But the highlight of the day was when the Turkish government, in recognition of the importance of this day to their American guests, authorized the flag to be raised and the national anthem played.

There wasn’t a dry eye among those present. We doffed our hats, covered our hearts, and sang the words of the anthem that defined who and what we were—Americans.

The flag was a symbol of our nation, as imperfect as it was.

A nation we loved and would die defending.

A nation defined by our potential to do good, and our willingness to try to live up to this potential.

I will remember that day for the rest of my life. I was fourteen years old, full of life and the dreams of life that come with being young and full of vim and vigor.

I found myself looking at the faces of the adults surrounding me, my parents included, amazed that they were all marked by tears streaming down their faces.

They loved their country.

All of them were prepared to give their lives for their country (and many had already put their lives on the line for their country.)

I looked at the flag as it rose to its rightful place atop the flag pole, fully extended by a stiff breeze to reveal its stars and stripes in all of their magnificent glory, and found myself crying as well.

It was then and there I made a vow that I would serve my country, and honor this living symbol of my nation.

It would be my life’s duty.

And now my country is dying.

Maybe 250 years was all the American experiment in democracy could withstand.

The outcome of the Battle of New York will determine our fate.

Thomas Jefferson, American Founding Father

And now to Jefferson’s letter:

“The people cannot be all, and always, well informed,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Stephens Smith, a US representative from the State of New York, on November 13, 1787. “The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had thirteen states independent eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”