Why Legislators Must Pass A
Proficiency Test On The
Constitution & The Bill Of
Rights Before Being Allowed
To Run For Office
©1997-98 by Dr. John Coleman

I wrote this work out of deep concern for the failure and or neglect of the Members of the House and Senate to study and be fully qualified and proficient in the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many of the legislators are lawyers; they had to pass exams to qualify to practice law. How then is it possible that such men don't know the first thing about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? How strange that while the legal requirement for them to practice law in the courts is a degree in law, when it comes to the HIGHEST law in the land, the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, (or to demonstrate their proficiency in understanding it) and in most cases, having only a smattering of education in the Constitution gained while at law schools. Any test-exam would soon reveal the majority of legislators to be hopelessly incompetent in this vital area.
The American people cannot and must not allow this to go on. A constitutional amendment must be passed requiring would-be legislators to have completed a minimum of 5 years of intensive study of the Annals of Congress, the Congressional Globes and the Congressional Records, after which they will be required to pass a written and oral proficiency test, and only then, should they be allowed to run for office. The United States of America is on a course of destruction, simply because the vast majority of those elected to the House and Senate are almost totally ignorant of that which they take an oath to uphold.
The abysmal ignorance and understanding of these documents and consequent failure of the House and Senate to kill proposed bills that are unconstitutional, has led to the loss of thousands of American servicemen, killed, and wounded, in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and billions of dollars wastefully and needlessly expended; two wars that could have and should have been prevented, had our legislators been qualified to practice in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It is impossible to write about the Korean and Vietnam Wars without in-depth reference to the United Nations (UN). Let us therefore deal with the salient features of the U.N. again. Having covered the subject elsewhere in some depth, I find there is still more to be said. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the United States never constitutionally joined the U.N. in 1945.
Those who signed the 100 percent treasonous U. N. treaty/agreement document, betrayed U.S. sovereignty; those who knew what they where doing should have been forced out of office, tried on charges of treason and when found guilty, made to pay the price for treason demanded by our Founding Fathers. At the head of the list of traitors stood John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, without whose intervention in the Senate debate, the U.N. agreement/treaty would have been rejected. As to the innocent Senators, those who were all at sea, bewildered and confused, of them we can only say: "Your ignorance cost the lives of thousands of our young servicemen and left thousands more wounded and mentally scarred for life, and for this you cannot ever be excused."
Without the U.N. vultures roosting on U.S. soil, there is every likelihood that there would have been no Korean War, no Vietnam War and no Gulf War. Acting under the auspices of the U.N., the Senate approved the unconstitutional Gulf of Tonkin Resolution after only ONE DAY of debate on August 10, 1964, in Akron, Ohio, while campaigning for re-election, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson said: "We are not about to send American boys nine to ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
Johnson ignored the fact that even as he spoke, 20,000 "American boys" were fighting in Vietnam, "nine to ten thousand miles away from home", and before his tenure in office would pass, the number of American "boys" engaged in hostilities in Vietnam would swell to 500,000. We could say the same thing about Wilson, Roosevelt, Bush et al; all Socialists posing as Democrat or Republican American leaders. We should have included Mr. Reagan in the gallery of American Socialist Presidents, but then again, Regan had a change of heart and went from a New Deal-Roosevelt Democrat to a conservative Republican. Although I can offer no proof, it is my belief that Bush is a hard-core Communist by virtue of his actions which speak louder than his words.
And all those wars those past Presidents generated! One thing emerges from the studies I have made, and that is, the Presidents would never have gotten away with it had the Representatives and Senators known the U. S. Constitution. But they did not, with the exception of those Senators who rejected the League of Nations "treaty", they really did not know the Constitution. Another thing worth mentioning; no Senator or Representative can be an integral member of the Republic of the United States as long as he or she remains in this state of abhorrent ignorance. The Senators and Representatives in the House and Senate today, don't know how a declaration of war has to be written up. Ask them, as I did, and see how they fail this test.
Take as an example, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In 1964 when Johnson was gearing up for full-scale war in Vietnam, among the Senators voting on this badly-flawed declaration of war, only two recognized it as a full declaration of war. Senator Morse knew it was, as did Senator Gruening. The remaining 98 senators didn't recognize it as such because they did not have the slightest idea of what a constitutional declaration of war looked liked. Congressional Record, Senate, Oct. 9, 1975, pages 32682--32683.
"Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the Congress assemble; that the Congress approves and supports the determi-nation of the President, as Commander and Chief (a falsehood--as he is not the commander in chief until called into actual service by a joint session of Congress) to take all the necessary measures to repel any attack against the armed forces of the United States...Consonant with the Constitution of the United States (an outrageous lie ) and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obliga-tions under the Southeast Asia collective Defense Treaty etc., etc."
If there is a standardized Communist word, it is "collective." The red flag of "collective" was ignored. The whole wording of the resolution was garbled, unclear, imprecise, useless, a shambles, an example of how such a document should never be written up. Any lawyer worth his salt would reject such appallingly poor drafting of a document in the course of his business practice.
Elsewhere, I have gone to some lengths to explain why the Gulf of Tonkin treaty was a fraudulent document, not only because it was written by the State Department, which has no legislative powers, but secondly because it co-mingles the Constitution with the United Nations agreement/treaty prohibited by the Constitution, and falsely claimed The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as a valid declaration of war. There was just one day allocated for debate on the resolution; another unconstitutional violation, an exercise in arbitrary power. The Constitution says that all measures brought to the floor for a vote must be fully debated as to their constitutionality, and in this case, proper debate would have taken at least twenty days.
Judge Story wrote three volummes on the U.S. Constitution in which is found one of the best examples of what a declaration of war should be, and one thing which becomes clear upon reading the work of the learned judge is that only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would have permitted the State Department to write it and then to inter-mingle its Gulf of Tonkin declaration with that of the U.N. Since there is no such amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution should have been killed on the floor of the Senate as it was ultra vires and outside the pale and ken of the Constitution.
When the State Department wrote its Gulf of Tonkin resolution, it short-changed the process of a constitutional declaration of war, deceived the American people, and cost thousands upon thousands of dead and wounded in the Korean War and the Vietnam War. What a national disgrace that this treasonous document ever cleared the Senate, because of the sheer constitutional ignorance of its members.
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution did not state what type of war was to be fought; a perfect war or an imperfect war, a further reason why it was so grossly unconstitutional. Neither Truman or Johnson had the slightest constitutional authority to send our troops to foreign lands on "peace keeping" missions at the behest of the United Nations. The United Nations charter Article 43 is an article for war, not peace, and the United Nations wants the blood of American servicemen to be shed and the dollars of the hard-working American people to be squandered in such endeavors.
Look at how foolishly we carried 95 percent of the costs in casualties of these two Asian wars, and see if you can find "equity among member nations" anywhere in this ghastly toll. Again, Mr. Clinton has no authority to keep American forces in Bosnia or the Middle East. These forces must be brought home without delay, and the way to do it is for the House and Senate to cut off the necessary funding for these misadventures.
It is painful and distressing to think that if only a few Representatives and Senators had a full knowledge of the Constitution in 1945, the U.N. agreement/treaty would have been rejected and thousands of lives saved in Korea and Vietnam, and hundreds of thousands of the wounded would have been spared; not to mention the huge financial cost of both wars. As a safeguard against a similar tragedy happening in the future, there must be legislation passed, making it mandatory for those who run for the House and Senate, to be fully qualified in the Constitution, before they can offer themselves as candidates.
Never again must We, the People, stand aside and allow a House and Senate full of consti-tutional ignoramuses to grant the desires of the Communist cadre inside the White House and State Department. We can start today by prohibiting President Clinton from unconsti-tutionally authorizing deployment of the armed forces of the U.S. in Bosnia and the Middle East.
A total of 98 Senators voted for the U.N. agreement/treaty out of sheer and total ignorance of the Constitution. I can think of no other country where such ignorance of the law of the land would be tolerated! Through this ignorance, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are made of no effect! Can't we see this? President Bush's Gulf War was another BIG LIE and again, the Senators failed their constitutional exam here. The law of the land should have stopped the illegal Gulf War before it got started.
As a result of that huge constitutional error, thousands of our Gulf War veterans are suffering from serious illnesses which are being passed on to their families. Is it any wonder that we should DEMAND that constitutional illiterates not be allowed to run for office? How many more Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars are we going to suffer before this nation learns its lesson?
Had the Senators known about, and followed a constitutional declaration of war, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War could never have taken place. Because of the total ignorance of the five steps needed for a constitutional declaration of war, the House and Senate has three-times allowed the American people to be plunged into foreign wars which were not in America's interests and in which George Washington in his Farewell Address warned us not to become entangled, as did Tench Coxe.
The U.N. is an evil legacy left to the United States by Communists Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, John Foster Dulles, Nathan Witt, Owen Lattimore, Gregory Silvermaster, Laughlin Curry, John Stewart Service, David Rockefeller and of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt, all of whom should have been tried for treason.
The United States cannot under its Constitution, furnish armed forces to fulfill U.N. goals. The Constitution forbids it! Where does the non- commander in chief draw his non-existent authority to have U.S. U2 spy planes constantly overflying Iraq on behalf of the U.N.? Someone in the Senate should rise up in indignation and demand that Mr. Clinton show where in the U.S. Constitution does it say he has such authority? All of his spin doctors and professional liars would not be able to put a gloss over this truth--Mr. Clinton has no such authority, yet, he is allowed to continue his desecration of the U.S. Constitution!
What Dulles succeeded in doing on behalf of the Communist One World Government--New World Order, was to persuade the Senate to violate Article 1, section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution, the article in which is found the power of Congress to declare war. What the U.N. charter, Article 43 says is that the U.N. has this power, not the U. S. Congress. This abhorrent violation which arose from the ignorance of the Senators in 1945 and the treachery and chicanery of Dulles and a handful of co-conspirators, have no validity under our U.S. Constitution, for nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any power that authorizes the Congress to give or share war-making powers with the U.N. Security Council, or with any other body. For the Senate to have authorized such a declaration of war, power sharing agreement with the U.N., would have required at least two amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Sending U.S. troops to Bosnia was a declaration of war ipso facto. Not a declaration of war by the U.S. but one given to the U.N. by our government to make war on our behalf, and there is not one single place in our Constitution where such a power can be delegated. Sending U.S. troops to Iraq under Article 43 of the U.N. charter, was a declaration of war WITHOUT A CONST-ITUTIONALLY MANDATED declaration of war by the Congress. This is high treason. Where does the U.N. draw power to send troops anywhere? The answer must by now be obvious: From the Communist Manifesto of 1848. Vattel's "Law of Nations" says the U.N. has no authority to interfere in the sovereign affairs of sovereign nations.
The Communists in the State Department sent Dulles to "explain" the U.N. agreement/ treaty to the Senators, but Dulles knew absolutely nothing about the treaty-making powers of the Congress (he being Constitutionally as ignorant as they were), and by lying, he confused the Senators until the debate (such as it was) turned into a veritable nightmare of confusion.
In the end, what the Senate gave to the U.N. under Article 43 was the power to make war against the United States! How could any-thing so bizarre be constitutional? The U.N. agreement/treaty was bogus! It remains bogus! What is significant is that in the U.N. agreement/treaty these words are only mentioned once in the introduction and the introduction is not a part of the charter, any more than is the preamble to the U. S. Constitution a part of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, as the U.N. is authorized to interfere in the sovereignty of other nations -- including the U.S., it can have no validity under the U.S. Constitution.
"Other nations" includes the U.S.! Yes, the treaty/agreement allows the U.N. to make war against the U.S.! What does this do to our sovereignty? It DESTROYS our sovereignty, the very foundation upon which our Constitution and Bill of Rights rest. Without sovereignty we are not a nation. Congress does not have the power to destroy our sovereignty, thus, not only must we NOT obey the U.N. charter, we must oust the U.N. from our shores and demand that the Constitution be obeyed by our Representatives and Senators; that a law to this effect be passed and executed as a matter of extreme urgency.
It is worth repeating over and over again: The U.S. did not sign a treaty in 1945; it signed an agreement which was and remains altogether unconstitutional, if for no reason other than the U.S. Constitution does not address itself to "agreements." The U.N. treaty/agreement is so badly flawed in scores of places that it is nothing more than a piece of paper, of no more validity under our constitutional laws than is a blank piece of paper. Yes, the U.N. treaty/agreement is of no more validity than is a blank piece of paper, because of the inane, vacuous, manner in which it is written, i.e., to mean all things to all men.
To mention but one example: The bottom line of the U.N. agreement/treaty centers around Article 43 of the charter and yet nowhere in Article 43 is "treaty" or "agreement" mentioned nor expressly implied. "Special agreement" is in the charter but what does that mean? It means anything under the sun and anything the Communists in Washington and the U.N. want it to mean. The U.S. Constitution does not recognize "agreements," only TREATIES. There is no 5th Amend-ment or "equal protection of the laws " in this U.N. document. So how in God's name can anybody tell us the U.N. agreement is superior to the U.S. Constitution and expect American people to go on throwing away their freedoms as expressly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, by being forced to adhere to this vile Communist-inspired document, this U.N. treaty/agreement not worth the paper on which it is written.
If it is argued that the U.N. agreement is a treaty, then let it be known that a treaty is no more than an ordinary law, and just like an ordinary law, it has to be in consonance with the Constitution: Cherokee Tobacco v. United States (11 wall, page 616) Justice Swayne.
"A treaty cannot change the Constitution, or be held valid, if it be in violation of that instrument. This results from the nature and fundamental principles of our government." Judge Cooley in "Constitutional Law" page 35:
"The Constitution itself never yields to a treaty or an enactment. It neither changes with time nor does it in theory bend to force of circumstances."
Senator Thurmond, Congressional Record, Feb. 14, 1879, pages 1300--1312:
"A treaty is a law according to the Constitution and its modification or its abrogation belongs to that department of government that makes and unmakes laws." Note that it does not belong to the United Nations acting under Article 43.
Now here comes the U.N. charter and rips the foregoing all to pieces; essentially it VOIDS our Constitution. Article 43 of the U.N. treaty is called a "special agreement." Where in the Constitution is there any provision for a "special agreement?" It is just not there. Such "special agreement" exceeds the bounds of the Constitution. Senator Fergusson, although confused on several points and issues, hit the nail on he head when he stated as follows, during the 3-day debate in 1945:
"Mr. President, the reason I am compelled to disagree with some of the opinions expressed here today, that this must be a treaty, is that if we are required--and we are, to make this agreement with the United Nations Security Council, we must realize that it is not a sovereign state, and we will agree that it is not a Superstate. Treaties as we in law understand them, Mr. President, must be made between sovereign nations. A treaty cannot be an agreement as it is contemplated here with the Security Council etc."
Because the Senate was only ignorant of this fact, i.e. this U.N. document was not a treaty but an agreement, they allowed the U.N. agreement to be confirmed. That act of folly and disgrace cost 54,000 killed in Korea and 58,000 killed in Vietnam. That total ignorance of the Constitution by the Senators in 1945, cost at least 112,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of wounded! We need to pound this information into our heads, so that the next time some Communist in the White House or the Senate, wants to embroil us in a U.N. war, We the People, will let our representatives in Washington know that it will not be tolerated.
The U.S. cannot allow itself to be drawn into the role of policing the world for the Committee of 300 agent, the U.N. The U.S. must abrogate the U.N. agreement or refuse to fund it with one single dollar more. And that must be done immediately. Anything less is treason against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and those who are guilty of prolonging our so-called membership of the U.N. deserve to be branded as traitors.

Sightings HomePage