Brigham Young stated that only Mormons can save the Constitution,

did they Miss the Boat?

"How long will it be before the words of the prophet Joseph will be fulfilled? He said if the Constitution of the United States were saved at all it must be done by this people." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 360)

Brigham Young promised that Mormons will do it

"When the Constitution of the United States hangs, at it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the "Mormon" Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 361)

Brigham Young envisioned globalization:

"I expect to see the day when the Elders of Israel will protect and sustain civil and religious liberty and every Constitutional right bequeathed to us by our fathers, and spread these rights abroad in connetion with the Gospel for the salvation of all nations. I shall see this whether I live or die. (Discourses of Brigham Young p. 361)

Only a righteous and informed people can save and restore the Constitution in these last days. http://members.tripod.com/~runwin/gov.html

Today's Mormon Leaders Watch The Constitution Disintegrate

"Today, as we see hovering over the nations of the earth the ever-darkening clouds of nuclear war, we are prone to think that righteousness among men is waning. In our own beloved country, "a land choice above all other lands," we are grieved and shocked when the Supreme Court renders a decision ruling that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government of any State to require a "belief in the existence of God" as a qualification for public office; also, we experience apprehension when we know that enemies to our republican form of government are becoming more blatant when we see political demagogues seemingly more successful drunkenness and immorality flauntingly defiant -- seeing these conditions we wonder whether mankind is growing better or worse." (President David O. McKay Oct. 1961 General Conference)

"No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations. We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for his is quoted as saying:

"We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots.'" (1964 Congressional Record, p.6124, Remarks for the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)

"Force rules in the world today. Individual freedom is threatened by international rivalries and false political ideals. Unwise legislation, too often prompted by political expediency, if enacted, will seductively undermine man's right of free agency, rob him of his rightful liberties, and make him but a cog in the crushing wheel of regimentation." "Pernicious efforts and sinister schemes are cunningly and stealthily being fostered to deprive man of his individual freedom and have him revert to the life of the jungle. With faith in the revealed word of God, let all true believers in individual freedom cherish the spiritual ideals of the Christ, and ever strive to make real the dream that all men shall be free, and that some day many nations will unite, not for war, but for peace and the establishing of the kingdom of God on earth." (LDS President David O. McKay Oct. 1965) http://members.tripod.com/~runwin/quotes.html

Socialism takes: United Order gives That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give. We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans have been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery." (Elder Marion G. Romney, April 1966 General Conference) http://members.tripod.com/~runwin/socialism.html

God Raised Up Wise Men, Only They Were Not Righteous

With these basic principles firmly in mind, let us now turn to a discussion of the inspired document we call the Constitution. My purpose is not to recite the events that led to the American Revolution - we are all familiar with these. But I would say this: History is not an accident. Events are foreknown to God. His superintending influence is behind the actions of His righteous children. Long before America was even discovered, the Lord was moving and shaping events that would lead to the coming forth of the remarkable form of government established by the Constitution. America had to be free and independent to fulfill this destiny. I commend to you as excellent reading on this subject Elder Mark E. Peterson's book The Great Prologue (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Co., 1975). As expressed so eloquently by John Adams before the signing of the Declaration, "There's a Divinity which shapes our ends." (2) Though mortal eyes and minds cannot fathom the end from the beginning, God does. In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Savior declared, "I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised unto this very purpose." (D&C 101:80) These were not ordinary men, but men chosen and held in reserve by the Lord for this very purpose. Shortly after President Spencer W. Kimball became President of the Church, he assigned me to go into the vault of the St. George Temple and check the early records. As I did so, I realized the fulfillment of a dream I had had ever since learning of the visit of the Founding Fathers to the St. George Temple. I saw with mine own eyes the record of the work which was done for the Founding Fathers of this great nation, beginning with George Washington. Think of it, the Founding Fathers of this nation, those great men, appeared within those sacred walls and had their vicarious work done for them. President Wilford Woodruff spoke of it in these words: "Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, 'You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to in and were faithful to God.' These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence and they waited on me for two days and two nights. I straightway went into the baptismal fond and called upon Brother McAllister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men." (3) These noble spirits came there with divine permission - evidence that this work of salvation goes forward on both sides of the veil. At a later conference, in April 1898, after he became President of the Church, President Woodruff declared that "those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of Heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits . [and] were inspired of the Lord." (4) But we honor more than those who brought forth the Constitution. We honor the Lord, who revealed it. God himself has borne witness to the fact that He is please with the final product of the work of these great patriots. In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith on 6 August 1833, the Savior admonished: "I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land." (D&C 98:6) In the Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer given on 27 March 1836, the Lord directed Joseph to say: "May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever." (D&C 109:54.) A few years later, Joseph Smith, while unjustly incarcerated in a cold and depressing cell of Liberty Jail at Clay County, Missouri, frequently bore his testimony of the document's divinity: "The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner." (5) How this document accomplished all of this merits our further consideration.

Major Provisions of the Constitution

The Constitution consists of seven separate articles. The first three establish the three branches of our government-the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The fourth article describes matters pertaining to states, most significantly the guarantee of a republican form of government to every state of the Union. Article 5 defines the amendment procedure of the document, a deliberately difficult process that should be clearly understood by every citizen. Article 6 covers several miscellaneous items, including a definition of the supreme law of the land, namely, the Constitution itself. Article 7, the last, explains how the Constitution is to be ratified. Now to look at some of the major provisions of the document itself. Many principles could be examined, but I mention five as being crucial to the preservation of our freedom. If we understand the workability of these, we have taken the first step in defending our freedoms. The major provisions of the Constitution are as follows:

First: Sovereignty lies in the people themselves. Every governmental system has a sovereign, one or several who possess all the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. The sovereign may be an individual, a group, or the people themselves. The Founding Fathers believed in common law, which holds that true sovereignty rests with the people. Believing this to be in accord with truth, they inserted this imperative in the Declaration of Independence: "To secure these rights {life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers for the consent of the governed."

Second: To safeguard these rights, the Founding Fathers provided for the separation of powers among the three branches of government-the legislative, the executive and the judicial. Each was to be independent of the other, yet each was to work in a unified relationship. As the great constitutionalist President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., noted: "It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches- legislative, executive and judicial- and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. . . . It was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle." (6) The use of checks and balances was deliberately designed, first, to make it difficult for a minority or the people to control the government, and, second, to place restraint on the government itself.

Third: The powers the people granted to the three branches of government were specifically limited. The Founding Fathers well understood human nature and its tendency to exercise unrighteous dominion when given authority. A Constitution was therefore designed to limit government to certain enumerated functions, beyond which was tyranny.

Fourth: Our Constitutional government is based on the principle of representation. The principle of representation means that we have delegated to an elected official the power to represent us. The Constitution provides for both direct represent -ation and indirect representation. Both forms or representation provide a tempering influence on pure democracy. The intent was to protect the individual's and the minority's rights to life, liberty and the fruits of their labors- property. These rights were not to be subject to majority vote.

Fifth: The Constitution was designed to work with only a moral and righteous people. "Our constitution," said John Adams (first vice-president and second president of the United States), "was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (7)

The Constitution Requires Loyalty and Support

This, then, is the ingenious and inspired document created by these good and wise men for the benefit and blessing of future generations. It is now two hundred years since the Constitution was written. Have we been beneficiaries of the gift entrusted to us? Have we valued and protected the principles laid down by this great document? At this bicentennial celebration we must, with sadness, say that we have not always been wise in keeping the trust of our Founding Fathers. For the past two centuries, those who do not prize freedom have chipped away at our Constitution until today we face a crisis of great dimensions. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: "Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction." (8) Will we be prepared? Will we be among those who will "bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction"? If we desire to be numbered among those who will, here are some things we must do: 1. We must be righteous and moral. We must live the gospel principles- all of them. We have no right to expect a higher degree of morality from those who represent us than what we ourselves exhibit. To live a higher law means we will not seek to receive what we have not earned by our own labor. It means we will remember that government owes us nothing. It means we will keep the laws of the land. It means we will look to God as our Lawgiver and the Source of our liberty. 2. We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? I quote Abraham Lincoln: "Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let become the political religion of the nation." (9) 3. We must become involved in civic affairs. As citizens of this republic, we cannot do our duty and be spectators. It is vital that we follow this counsel form the Lord: "Honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:10) Note the qualities that the Lord demands in those who are to represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest. We must be concerted in our desires and efforts to see men and women represent us who possess all three of these qualities- goodness, wisdom, and honesty. 4. We must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, and our advice. We must be wisely informed and let others know how we feel. We must take part in local precinct meetings and select delegates who will truly represent our feelings. I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this church- men and women who will subscribe to and abide the principles of the Constitution. I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its works are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that the God of heaven sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and He has sent other choice spirits to preserve it. We, the blessed beneficiaries, face difficult days in this beloved land, "a land which is choice above all other lands." (Ether 2:10) It may also cost us blood before we are through. It is my conviction, however, that when the Lord comes, the Stars and Stripes will be floating on the breeze over this people. May it be so, and may God give us the faith and the courage exhibited by those patriots who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor that we might be free, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Notes: 1. William Ewart Gladstone: Life and Public Services, ed. Thomas W. Handford (Chicago: The Dominican Co., 1899), p. 323

2. As quoted in The Works of Daniel Webster, 6 vols., 4th ed. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 1:133.

3. Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946), pp. 160-61.

4. In Conference Report, April 1898, p. 89.

5. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B.H. Roberts, 7 vols., 2nd ed. Rev. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-51), 3:304

6. Church News, 29 Nov. 1952, p. 12

7. As quoted by John R. Howe, Jr., The Changing Political Thought of John Adams (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1966), p. 185.

8. 19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, MS, Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

9. Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. John G. Nicolay and John Hay, 12 vol. (New York; Francis D. Tandy Co., 1905), 1:43. http://members.tripod.com/~runwin/glorious.html

 

 

 

A GATT Appeal to Congress and the Results

 

 

 

On January 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Western Europe during WW II, military commander of NATO, and President of Columbia University, after forty-six years of public service, presented to the Nation his farewell address as its President. In this address President Eisenhower stated that the basic purpose of our government is to keep the peace, foster progress in human achievement, and enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. However, at the time, President Eisenhower was concerned that there were forces at work in the Nation, in contradiction to these noble goals. To warn the American people about the nature of these forces President Eisenhower stated, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

President Eisenhower, although justified in his concerns, was short-sighted in describing them. The real threat to liberty and democracy in America, at the time, was not the military-industrial complex, but more accurately something far more reaching; the corporate-governmental complex or more appropriately described, the union of government and corporate forces to an extent where corporate influence is the dominant force in American politics at the expense of the Nation and its citizens. This was the real threat that existed as President Eisenhower spoke and this threat has achieved it goals and purposes to such an extent that our Nation is, at present, being torn between those still blindly loyal to what was our government and those all too aware of what is happening.

The fundamental concept adhered to by our founding fathers in drafting our Constitution was that our government would be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. At the time, large corporations did not exist. The only institutions of significance around were the people, the government, and the press. The press, served as a source of information for the people and a watchdog of government. The Constitution was drafted in keeping with these political realities and served the Nation well for almost 200 years. The problem we now face today is that the situation is such that multinational corporations, through wealth and wealth asso-ciated influence, are able to control most governments of the World, including ours. Our founding fathers never envisioned or considered the rise of corporations as a political force in the World and the fact that they would grow so large that their power and influence would exceed that of governments and transcend national boundaries.

Is this really true? Truth is a matter of perception, but these perceptions are validated over and over again by the actions of the Federal Government and its officials. For example, prior to the enactment of NAFTA, when asked about the loss of U.S, sovereignty under NAFTA, President Clinton responded, "If we're going to ask Mexico to give up a little sovereignty, why shouldn't we give up a little too?" These words spoken by President Clinton are both shocking and revealing. First of all, the sovereignty of our Nation belongs to its people. The President of the United States, more than any other individual, is duty bound to protect it at all costs. Instead, he believes that he can barter it away like a loaf of bread or some other commodity. The concept that sovereignty can be bartered and traded like a commodity is one that serves only the interests and purposes of multi-national corporations at the expense of the people of this Nation. A president who maintains he has authority to barter away our sovereignty and does so, is not working in our best interests, but subscribing to the agenda of multinational corporations.

On April 8, 1996, on the first page of The New-Journal from Daytona Beach, Florida, an article appeared under the headline: "U.S. balks at signing anti-corruption pact". This article starts out by explaining how corporate executives and government officials with overseas assignments have snickered at our efforts to eliminate bribery and corruption in inter-national business. The article goes on to explain that twenty-one member nations of the Organization of American States, recently signed a treaty to crack down on such shady practices, but the United States of America, declined to join them because the Justice Department has reservations about the constitutionality of the treaty's provisions. Specifically, it takes issue with the requirement to make it a crime for a government official to acquire assets, "that he cannot reasonably explain in relation to his lawful earnings during the performance of his functions". The Justice Department objects to this requirement because it appears to shift the burden of proof from the government to the suspect, contrary to U.S. Constitutional requirements.

When an individual is hired into the Public Service or elected to public office, the public is placing in that person a special trust; to no longer think and act to benefit ones self, but rather think and act only for the common good. If a person holding public office or working for the government acquires assets beyond those he is able to obtain through his lawful earnings, then clearly he has violated the public trust and having done so, should forfeit all assets so gained including the lawful earnings associated with the office or position he held. This latter requirement, at first, may seem extreme, but is it? After all, if when working for the public, I instead work for myself, am I not taking the salary I was paid under false pretenses?

Apparently the Justice Department doesn't think so and instead maintains that the Constitution precludes those serving the public from being accountable. How ironic that a document who's prime purposes are to protect the people from government and make it accountable, is used by the Justice Department to ensure that government employees are not accountable. How did this absurdity come to pass? Perhaps, if the situation was such that government employees could not unlawfully enrich themselves, then the reach of multinational corporations into government would be reduced. More specifically, how could multinational corporations maintain control of the World Trade Organization, if ways of illegally enriching delegates is eliminated? Is the Justice Department of the United States of America subscribing to the hidden agenda of multi-national corporations? If not intentionally, they certainly seem to be doing so inadvertently.

During the NAFTA debate, a Congressional Representative stood up and declared that the business of America is business. This may be true for the private sector. However, the business of government is not business. The business of government is governing. Business and governing do not mix well because the prime purpose of government is ensure that the playing field is level for everyone. On the other hand, the primary goal of a business is to gain advantage on competitors. When government and business mix, the result is bad business and very bad government. When this occurs, the rich and powerful win and the losers are small businesses and citizens.

******

In November 1994, the house of representatives passed GATT. Until this point, I did not believe that the passage of an agreement of this nature was possible. However, when the House of Representatives passed GATT, I woke up and wrote the following letter to the Editor of Newsweek Magazine.

The United States of America is a sovereign nation and as such is autonomous and free of external control. Under GATT, trade disagreements would be subject to binding arbitration with the World Trade Organization being the arbitrator. In other words, in matters of world trade, under GATT, the United States of America will have lost its sovereignty.

No government official has the right or authority to place this Nation, its Constitution, and its people subservient to any other governing body or authority and anyone that does so is selling out democracy and committing an act of treason.

******

After writing this letter, I wrote an open letter to the President, Congress, and People of the United States of America.

December 1, 1994, is a day that will live in infamy because on that day Congress wrongfully and illegally enacted as United States Law, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). As a result, Congress has invalidated our Constitution, reduced our Nation to less than sovereign status, violated the democratic principles we hold dear, and sold out the people of America. Furthermore, Senators and Representatives that voted for GATT, did so in contradiction and violation of their Pledge of Allegiance.

Under GATT, trade disagreements involving United States Law are subject to binding arbitration with the World Trade Organization (WTO) being the arbitrator. In other words, in matters of world trade, the WTO is sovereign to the United States and that organization has veto power over the actions of Congress. The World Trade Organization is not a democratic institution. Its member states include dictatorships and communist nations each having one vote equal to the one held by the us. Therefore, under GATT, communists and dictators, acting in consort, have the power to override United States Law.

The Constitution of the United States of America states that all legislative Powers shall be vested in Congress and that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign Nations. Under GATT, this is no longer true because Congress is now subservient to the WTO in matters regulating commerce with foreign Nations. Therefore, the Congressional vote for GATT is illegal because it is in violation of our Constitution's provisions. The changes wrought by GATT must be made by constitutional amendment and not a simple vote of Congress.

Our pledge of allegiance states that we "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands". Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language defines "Republic" as "a state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all citizens entitled to vote". The member nations of the WTO are not citizens of the United States and they certainly are not entitled to vote in our elections. Despite this, Congress has voted to give the WTO veto power over our laws. This being so, the democratic principles that underpin our government have been compromised and this Nation is no longer a "Republic". Therefore, the individuals responsible for this state of affairs have violated their pledge of allegiance to our Nation and citizens.

In my opinion, the flag of the United States of America should no longer be displayed in the halls of Congress and instead, should be replaced by a World Trade organization banner. I further propose that this banner be green with a large black dollar sign displayed within its center. This WTO banner will require a new "Pledge of Allegiance" and I propose that Congress, in honesty and candor, adopt the following:

I pledge allegiance to the banner of the World Trade organization
and to the Money for which it stands,
gleaned from many Nations,
subjugated,
with liberty and justice for the rich and powerful.

May God help us and forgive our Congressional Representatives. Their actions have made a mockery of our democratic way of life and ensured that all veterans who have the paid the ultimate price in the service of their country, have died in vain.

******

Congressman Peter Deutsch responded to my open letter as follows.

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding the Uruguay Round of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I appreciate your interest in GATT and respect your position.

The Uruguay Round of the GATT, signed on December 15, 1993 by the United States with 116 other countries, is the result of seven years of bipartisan cooperation and has been negotiated under the stewardship of three successive U.S. Administrations. The intent was to level the playing field of international trade by creating a more fair, comprehensive, and enforceable set of world trade rules. In order to accomplish this goal, a new World Trade Organization (WTO) was created.

Although some say that the WTO compromises U.S. sovereignty, I reject that notion. Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to change U.S. law. Both parties have worked to ensure that Congress retains its legitimate authority by monitoring the evolution of the WTO and protecting the interests of the U.S. The President and Senator Dole, have agreed to support a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission comprised of five Federal appellate judges who would review all adopted WTO panel reports which are adverse to the U.S. If the Commission determines that the panel has decided unfairly, any Member of Congress could call on the President to negotiate a solution in the WTO. If three determinations are made within any five year period, any Member of Congress could introduce legislation to end US participation in the WTO.

Now is the time for the United States to take leadership in international trade. The U.S. negotiators engaged in this laborious effort to reach an agreement that would prepare the American economy for the rigors of competition in the global market. The U.S. economy overall will gain tremendously by opening markets abroad because the U.S. is open to other countries' imports while other nations have a long history of blocking the importation of foreign goods through high tariffs. The most conservative estimates show that GATT will add revenue to the U.S. GDP of around $100 billion a year after implementation.

Florida in particular stands to gain from GATT. As the eighth-leading exporter of merchandise, Florida's exports nearly doubled from $7 billion to $14.7 billion between 1987 and 1993. The South Florida region recorded 1993 export sales of over $9.5 billion; almost two-thirds the state total. GATT should benefit South Florida's economy through increased exports of goods to other nations. South Florida is a winner under GATT.

Again, thank you for sharing your views. Please contact my office should any further issues or concerns arise.

******

I responded to Representative Deutsch as follows.

The most disturbing aspect of the Congressional vote for GATT is that Congress does not recognize the serious implications of the situation we now find ourselves in. Approximately 200 years ago, the American Revolution gave birth to a new nation unlike any other in history. The auspicious beginning of the great and noble experiment that was the United States of America began with a shout and report heard around the world and now, in a lame duck session of Congress, the experiment has ended with hardly a whimper.

You say you reject the notion that the WTO compromises U.S. sovereignty for essentially the following reasons:

1. Congress retains the power to change U.S. law under GATT.

2. Both political parties have worked to ensure that Congress retains its legitimate authority under the Constitution.

3. Mechanisms have been developed to protect U.S. interests under GATT.

4. The option to end our participation in GATT precludes having given up our sovereignty.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines sovereignty as, "having supreme power free of external control". Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language defines sovereignty as "being supreme in power, rank, or authority independent of all others". Under GATT, despite the efforts of both political parties, despite the existence of a Settlement Review Commission, despite the provision that if the WTO Panel decides unfairly the President may negotiate a solution, and despite the provision that Congress has the option of ending our participation in the WTO, the indisputable fact remains that the United States of America is no longer a supreme power independent of all others and free of external control. Under GATT, we are not sovereign in matters of world trade and if we are not sovereign in world trade, then we are not sovereign.

These truths are self-evident and thus the Congressional vote for GATT was an earth shaking development. Congress, on the other hand, treated the sovereignty issue as an insignificant rider on a trade bill. This is disturbing and highly suspicious. An issue of this import requires far more attention than it was given and most Congressmen being attorneys know this. The democratic principles that underpin our Nation have been compromised by a simple vote of Congress for a claimed gain of $100 billion to our GDP. Is this the price of our Republic and democratic heritage?

The obvious truth of the matter is that under GATT, the United States of America has lost its sovereignty and is no longer a republic. Therefore, the vote for GATT was illegal and unconstitutional. Issues of sovereignty can only be addressed by Constitutional amendment.

I sincerely hope that Congress recognizes the mistake it has made and properly revisits the sovereignty issue raised by GATT as provided for in Article V of our Constitution.

******

Senator Bob Graham responded to my open letter as follows.

Thank you for contacting my office regarding international trade.

In June 1993, Congress cleared legislation extending President Clinton's authority to negotiate a treaty strengthening the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Negotiators from 117 countries reached a consensus in the Uruguay Round of the GATT on December 15. On April 15, 1994, U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor signed the GATT agreement in Marrakesh, Morocco, on behalf of President Clinton.

The latest GATT negotiations are aimed at expanding trade among the participating nations by reducing tariffs and ensuring market-access commitments. These actions will help spur worldwide economic growth, increase employment, and minimize protectionism.

On November 30 and December 1, the Congress reconvened in a special session to debate and vote on the GATT. The Senate approved the GATT with my support, 76-24, on December 1, 1994. The United States has proven that it will continue to provide global leadership in terms of an open, effective, competitive market system that provides expanded opportunities for people throughout the world.

I appreciate knowing your views on this important matter and will keep them in mind should the Senate revisit any related issues.

******
Representative Connie Mack responded to my open letter as follows.

It was good to hear from you regarding the Uruguay Round of the GATT trade negotiations. I appreciate hearing your concerns.

Many GATT countries provide heavy government subsidies and impose significant tariffs. These trade practices hurt American jobs, and we should explore all opportunities to break down these trade barriers. The American worker is the most productive worker in the world, and has always excelled on a level playing field. Certainly, the United States should only enter into this agreement if it enhances America's competitiveness and serves our national interests.

I have several concerns about this agreement, one of which is the World Trade Organization (WTO). According to the Uruguay Round agreements, the WTO would administer global trading rules and settle disputes among member nations. The United States played an important role in negotiating these provisions; yet some still express uncertainty about how WTO decisions might affect the United States. Although the GATT implementing legislation makes it clear that the United States maintains full authority to establish, amend or change its own federal and state laws, Congress must approach this issue cautiously and with careful analysis.

Be assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind. When the agreement comes before the Senate for ratification, it will have my support only if it's in the best interest of the United States and of Florida.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Knowing how you feel on key issues helps me better represent Florida in the United States Senate.