Hierarchy of Law                                               last major update July 14, 2014
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    previous major updates
April 9, 2013;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      October 10, 2013

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    page last changed November 1, 2017


              Hierarchy/Bare-bones               Full Treatment             Petition                Contracts              Strategy

we petition the Administration to:

Issue a specific statement regarding preservation of Sovereignty and The Constitution from outside influence.

We require a specific statement from The White House regarding what efforts The White House will take & when, in support of a proposal for a Constitutional Amendment [called "Hierarchy of Law" at www.usann.us/Hierarchy_of_Law.html & further explained on that site], to preserve Sovereignty, and The Constitution as the guiding Law of the Land, & by ensuring a specific clarification of a hierarchy within the structures provided within & under that Constitution; or, a statement of why such support is not & will not be provided.

The proposal is largely designed to keep UN & similar attempts against US sovereignty, as regarding arms and the Law of the Sea Treaty, from ever allowing the UN or others to dictate to the US, while still allowing the US to adopt positions in line with such.


We continue to petition to The White House in support for “Hierarchy of Law”, largely designed to keep UN & similar attempts against US sovereignty, as regarding arms and the Law of the Sea Treaty, from ever allowing the UN or others to dictate to the US, while still allowing the US to adopt positions in line with such.  Do you really want the UN telling us what to do about an invasion at our border, for example?


Please help this effort to protect US Sovereignty and The US Constitution.  More, here.  Or, take our word for it and immediately go to The White House site by way of our "Action Items" page to sign
[making use of the WhiteHouse.gov site ensures that nobody need leave any information here, potentially saves us a lot of work, and provides opportunity for visitors to also choose from a variety of other petitions that they may also wish to support...or not].

Let’s get this thing over the 100K signatures-in-30-days threshold for a response…in record time.

We need 100,000 signatures, and would rather have twice that  -- how about a half million?


We've a companion petition also accessible through the "Action Items" page with the objective of maintaining and even improving this petition access as a tool for responsive government [novel concept, huh?].  Signatures also requested for that one.



While we hold The Constitution in great esteem here, considering it something of a holy document [the house Barbarian calls it one part of his Holy Trinity], we do not see it as the beginning and ending of all things Great and Good.  Neither did those who wrote it, evidenced by one of the most miraculous features of the document: the provision(s) for amending it.
We do not consider proposing Amendment lightly, for a number of reasons.  We do not think that all situations necessarily call for a change to The Constitution, in part because we think most answers are already there.  In fact, we think that strict adherence to “original intent” would probably solve most of the problems in the country today.  We also are not at all sure that we are somehow blessed with a special combination of skills and talents uniquely and adequately suited to the task, and we certainly claim no exclusivity in such if we are found to be reasonably suited in this instance.

Still, the ravages of 200 years of neglect in some quarters, and the creativity of some of those less-enlightened than The Founders, has brought on situations that do indeed call for changes  -- and in some cases, changes to changes [like rescinding the 17th Amendment, thereby returning election of Senators to the State legislatures]  -- or at least some clarifications.  We believe that the most appropriate means by which to address this problem -- and it is a problem -- is, unfortunately, by Constitutional Amendment.

What follows is adapted from a more extensive work in progress [the proposal being only one of a series which are intended and structured to work together, though each is also constructed to work as an independent piece (another is "
Fiscal Responsibility")].

Loss of Sovereignty

Loss of sovereignty has been seen here for a long time.  We have watched for years as Congress made itself less and less relevant, and as the Administration and even the Judiciary sought more and more accord with international entities than with the people of the country.   Consider the array of U.N. Treaties and accords [by whatever name known] on the environment, childrens’ rights, Agenda 21, and firearms, just for openers.  Obama and his Secretary of State and others have been heading that way since coming to Power, in a number of ways and on a number of fronts; they are not the first, but they’ve been going at it with unprecedented vigor and thoroughness.

We at this site believe that the country is on the brink, not just financially, and not just on sovereignty, and not just on those two items: we are in big trouble in too many ways to address in what might be seen as "a sound bite" or a blog entry.

But the threat to Sovereignty demands, as we see it, immediate response, and if it costs us potential future earnings, well, at least we might still live, and in a country where earnings are at least a potential.  We also have seen the threat to Sovereignty as being way beyond war-making powers, which is what has brought this to a head, and we have devised our REMEDY to address Sovereignty specifically, rather than any form an attack on it might take.  We think readers will find it "covers a multitude of sins".


        What is known as the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution  -- Article VI, paragraph 2 --  does not clearly specify a hierarchy within what is there classed as "the supreme Law of the Land"; the hierarchy is one of those things that has been "interpreted".  The components are listed [The Constitution itself, and Treaties and statutes made under The Constitution], but there is no specification of which takes precedence or in what way [typically, heaviest weight in law tends to be given the newest entry on a given subject, but is that always best?], or anything else about the relationship of one component to the others; not even duration or under what circumstances things might change (other than by implication, of future laws and treaties).  Does a Treaty take precedence over a provision of The Constitution proper?  Are the laws made pursuant to The Constitution to carry as much weight?  More?  If there is a conflict between a Treaty and a statute enacted after that Treaty has been ratified, does that statute take precedence over the provision of the Treaty?  Does it become a part of the Treaty?  Would the other party [or parties] to the Treaty be bound by the statute?  It all could [and sometimes does] become a bit awkward at best.
         The question that triggered this particular effort to the web is the staggering pronouncement by the Secretary of Defense in Congressional testimony in early March of 2012 that indicates the administration figures it must seek international permission to follow its interests but even checking in with Congress, let alone seeking Congressional concurrence, is optional, even over actions potentially or intentionally leading to war.  Such questions must not be relegated to the later pursuits of historians and other academics: they must be settled questions that lead to clear policy and procedure.  Yet, as things stand, any determination(s) is(are) left to argument between individuals, with or without support argument of whatever merit, or "interpretation" by The Court.

        Unfortunately,The Court is not always a perfect arbiter; The Court has in fact, on occasion, reversed itself , and may do so again[1].  What is sought here is a permanent specification that is essentially beyond "interpretation", interpretation that might change from time to time (and with Court membership).

        What was of perhaps greatest concern to many over the last few years is the potential surrender of Sovereignty through exercise of a Treaty, as a few years ago there was some uproar about a proposed United Nations Treaty on Climate Change [there have been others, for many years]: today, with the sword-rattling over nuclear bomb development [Iran] and delivery [North Korea], and in light of the comments from the Secretary of Defense, the greatest concern may be over committing the country to war [despite all the resources committed to wars of assorted intensities and durations since the end of WWII, that was the last time there was a Declaration of War: it ended over 65 years ago].  Under the proposal here, by resolving forever and for all people the question of relinquishing sovereignty while this Constitution exists, greater security  -- not absolute security, but greater security --  is offered those with such concerns and even other concerns, both within and outside of this nation, at little if any cost to anybody; the only means to surrender sovereignty, which is in fact specifically prohibited to any member or body of the government in the proposal, becomes to negate, in its entirety, The Constitution of The United States of America.

        The second paragraph of the proposal clearly puts The Constitution, including its Amendments, apart and above both Treaties and federal statutes.  Further, it requires that the legislature, particularly in the body of the Senate, pay heed to ensuring consistency in its own acts, between statutes and ratification of Treaties.  Finally, it clarifies the negotiation and ratification process for Treaties.

        That last might not seem to be a big deal, but as it stands, without such a specification, there are at least three kinds or levels of treaties, as used by the government of the U.S.A.  --  two of which somehow exist without following the Constitutional mandate of Senate confirmation [we see no semblance of rationality in that  -- none whatsoever --  nor any authority for such in The Constitution; the catch-all "commerce clause"?].  That is important because, while the government of the U.S.A. treats each of these levels differently, international law recognizes no such differences.  [We are still looking into how and when this came about, under what pretense(s), but felt such historically interesting things to be details that could wait, far better than the country could wait this proposal] [2].

        The third paragraph ends the pretense that Treaties come in varieties that need not meet the Constitutional standard for ratification and still be valid as Treaties.  Anything that is to be deemed a Treaty, under this proposal, must meet a similar standard, one to the next, and be ratified and observed similarly.  Likewise, in an acknowledgement that times  -- and relations, even between countries --  change, all treaties are given a sunset provision, a limited duration.  They need not be renegotiated, necessarily, but are subject to a continuing relationship of continuing character; a country once "friendly" with another might not still be "friendly", certainly in the same manner, 10 years later.  A very strong evidence of that can be found in all the international finger-pointing and the like in the recent several years of economic tumult: other nations finding themselves not liking the impacts on their nations, perhaps should not have had their horses tied to the backs of the wagons of the U.S.A. [had their horses been pulling too, the wagons might still be rolling better].

        A fringe benefit that could come of this proposal might be a federal legislature dealing more of the time with things of a truly national [international] nature, rather than involving themselves too greatly in the daily lives of the states and the citizenry of The United States of America.  [This would, as we see it, be in keeping with the pattern of the earliest funding scheme for the country, and the specification of the 10th Amendment.]





[1]  A case from New London, CN a few years back, might still soon be subject to such a reversal.  It involved eminent domain, and the Court ruled that a government "purpose" was equivalent to a government "use" [see "Watch Your Language" for more about subtleties of wording], handing down a decision that was extremely unpopular and believed by many to violate the entire concept of private property.  Something like 43 state legislatures took remarkably prompt action to negate any future impacts of the New London decision within their states, but, at this writing, it remains "the law of the land".  Still, it is of such interest to so many that The House of Representatives took a vote just days before the 2012 edition of this adaptation was posted to the web, [March] seeking to essentially reverse The Court [largely symbolic, because it was widely accepted that The Senate would not concur even if it voted on the question at all, which was unlikely in itself: another entirely separate discussion].  Little came of it, as was expected, but it might well resurface.


[2]  Some people have argued that the phrasing in the Constitution actually has the Senate responsible for making Treaties, and that the Presidential signature is the ratification.  This proposal stipulates and ensures acceptance as official the more commonly held position that the President makes (negotiates) a treaty which is then subject to ratification by the Senate, putting an end to the question.

We offer the following as a proposal for Amending The Constitution of The United States of America:

Hierarchy of the Supreme Law of the Land

The Constitution of The United States of America shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and shall remain so in perpetuity; there can be no surrender of national sovereignty, not by any act of any governing official or governmental body of The United States of America.

Amendments, properly ratified and attached to the Constitution, become a part of the primary document, and within that context the most recently enacted shall always be deemed to supersede that which has come before, though no amendment can change or permit change of the first paragraph of this article.  Treaties, enacted and ratified in accord with the provisions of this Constitution, i.e., negotiated and signed by the Administration and then ratified by a vote of approval by 2/3 of the Senators present for said vote, just as federal legislation, are secondary and subservient to the Constitution itself and shall not take precedence over any provision of it; federal statutes are made under authority of this Constitution, and it is the obligation of the Congress to ensure that federal statutes and Treaties, also made under authority of this Constitution, do not conflict, and no Treaty shall be ratified in which such conflict exists.

All treaties made, or to be made, under authority of this Constitution, each being subject to the same form of ratification in order to have effect, are to have duration of not more than 10 years, but may be individually renewed by a codification or confirmation vote as if coming before the Senate for ratification for a first time; all treaties now extant under this Constitution are subject to review and codification within 10 years of ratification of this amendment.

Addendum, October 10, 2013


The UN Treaty on Small Arms is, from1perspective, ghastly at best.  Many people, this writer included, believe that the treaty is “not as advertised”, and is actually a world-wide scheme for disarming individuals – and thus limiting liberty --  through a registration/taxation/confiscation plan [and with less-laudable intents].

That treaty has been signed by a significant number of countries, including the United States of America.  In this country, traditional thinking interprets The Constitution to require Senate ratification for treaties [there is another school of thought, with relatively few adherents, that Senate ratification is not necessary].  Most of those supporting the need for Senate action, believe that it takes 67 Senators to vote in favor of a treaty for ratification.  This is simply not true.

The constitutional requirement for Senate ratification is “2/3 of Senators present”.  Noting that a quorum [50% plus one] is necessary, at least theoretically, for the Senate to do any business, it becomes clear that the real number necessary for ratification could be substantially less than 67.  In fact, under these circumstances, 2/3 of 51  -- just 34 --  would be sufficient to ratify a treaty…and it should be noted that there are 57 Democrats in the Senate at last count.

Now, like so many commercials on late night television, “But wait: there’s more!”  There has been a recent flap over “recess appointments” that is of significance in this discussion.  It is possible, within our understanding of parliamentary procedure (largely based on recent events in Congress), for the Senate, constitutionally empowered to make its own rules, to meet in what is called “pro forma” session, a parliamentary construction allowing the Senate to be technically in session while essentially everybody is gone; as few as three Senators can go through a few formalities and, to all intents and purposes, keep the Senate “in session” and thus able to conduct business.

Should Reid bring a ratification vote to the floor and lose, by use of another parliamentary procedure he can enable himself to bring the item back for another vote at a later time.  Anybody who thinks, after the shenanigans of the partial government shutdown at the beginning of the new fiscal year starting October 1, 2013, that Harry Reid would hesitate in any way, to do whatever he could to get what he wants, has simply not been paying attention.  The bottom line?  Harry Reid could, conceivably, bring a treaty ratification vote to the floor, lose, bring the issue back up in a pro forma session at a later date, and win ratification of that treaty with just two votes (a majority when only 3 are in the room).  [A motion can be brought up, voted on, and if nobody objects, it is deemed to have passed “unanimously” because there was no objection, so it could conceivably pass “unanimously” with only 2 votes.]

We believe that gives readers cause to pause.  It is, undeniably, a very good example of why “Hierarchy of Law” is so badly needed, as soon as possible.  With “Hierarchy of Law” in place, even the Senate ratification of the UN treaty could not provide a legal challenge to the Second Amendment of The Constitution: the most basic protection of liberty, the right to keep and bear arms, would be permanently protected…along with the rest of The Constitution, from inadvertent  -- or intentional --  “tampering” by way of international agreement.


As with our favorite similar effort, to further another specific proposal for an amendment to The Constitution  -- one that addresses "Fiscal Responsibility", almost assuredly providing balanced federal budgets, every year and on time while paying off the national debt --  this is pretty straightforward and would, we believe, work well, once in place. 

It is up to the reader to make sure this  -- as well as that other proposal --  gets in place.  Yes, the individual reader.  It is not up to us [+≠&] to "lead", or to create an organization that is in fact a new special interest group  -- special interest groups being largely key to so many of the problems we [society] have created for ourselves.  No, the place of +≠& is to continue to spread the word.  Readers can help us to do that, through their signatures to petitions, through social media and more.  [Contributions gratefully accepted; it costs a goodly number of dollars a year to keep this up...aside from countless hours and tremendous energy].  It is our hope to encourage others, with the efforts of many individuals returning the government to its original intents.

With all we put into the effort in hope of sharing in good result, we ask readers who might wish to share in good result put forward some efforts as well.

we petition the Obama administration to:

Issue a specific statement regarding preservation of Sovereignty and The Constitution from outside influence.

We require a specific statement from The White House regarding what efforts The White House will take & when, in support of a proposal for a Constitutional Amendment [called "Hierarchy of Law" at www.usann.us/Hierarchy_of_Law.html & further explained on that site], to preserve Sovereignty, and The Constitution as the guiding Law of the Land, & by ensuring a specific clarification of a hierarchy within the structures provided within & under that Constitution; or, a statement of why such support is not & will not be provided.

The proposal is largely designed to keep UN & similar attempts against US sovereignty, as regarding arms and the Law of the Sea Treaty, from ever allowing the UN or others to dictate to the US, while still allowing the US to adopt positions in line with such.



(general) PLAN

Exercise integrity, and encourage others to do so: Support each other, and encourage others to do so;

Educate ourselves, and encourage others to do so; Use the term Usann, and encourage others to do so;

Resist tyranny, and encourage others to do so; Exercise authority over officials, and encourage others to do so;

And take the country back, one day, one moment, at a time.

Our goal is to follow the above plan in our lives and our business, thus being a part of returning our country, The United States of America, to the Republic it was envisioned and designed to be and The Great Experiment -- the Rule of Law -- brought to the world by the Founding Fathers.

We ask readers -- and others -- consider doing likewise.

Taking no ads, the only revenue to keep this site going is out of our own pockets and should arguably
be going to other things, from the few items sometimes in our store, and whatever
donations might be put in the tip jar on our Comment/Support page.

To the extent that you think reasonable

-- and please think for a moment about how long it would take you to put something like this together,
and what it would cost you, in energy and money, to then make it and keep it available on the web --

we ask you consider contributing to our delinquency.

Copyright Notice:

All rights reserved: no derivative work is authorized.  No part of this, or any material from PLUSdoesNOTequalAND Publishing, may be reproduced or stored in any manner whatsoever without the prior written consent of the copyright holder, save as noted here.  Most specifically, no derivative work is authorized.  No other use without prior written permission is authorized until copyright duration has expired or until such time as the material might be specifically intentionally released by the owner to public domain. Commercial use, or any use that might reasonably be expected to damage the copyright holders’ market, is strictly prohibited.

Members of Congress, and likewise members of state legislatures, may make copies of
proposals and measures to the extent necessary for introduction and passage/adoption of those proposals and measures only; no changes, derivative works, or reproduction of support materials is authorized.  When and if enacted as proposed at usann.us, the copyright owner(s) release the proposals [only: not the support materials] to become a part of public domain.