(Robert Malone) — From September 22-23, 2024, the United Nations will convene a “Summit of the Future” to obtain official states parties’ signatures on a series of multilateral “pacts,” or international agreements, between participating nations.
The aim of the Summit is twofold:
- Accelerate efforts to meet our existing international commitments, and
- Take concrete steps to respond to emerging challenges and opportunities.
This will be achieved through an action-oriented outcome document called the Pact for the Future.
The Pact will be negotiated, and endorsed by countries in the lead-up to and during the Summit in September 2024.
The result will be a world – and an international system – that is better prepared to manage the challenges we face now and in the future, for the sake of all humanity and for future generations.
The “Summit of the Future” pact and annexes include the “Pact for the Future,” the “Declaration on Future Generations,” and the “Global Digital Compact.”
READ: Telegram founder Pavel Durov released from jail on $5 million bail, faces criminal charges
In other words, this “Summit of the Future” will define a new international system, otherwise previously known as the “New World Order.” The political, legal, organizational, and bureaucratic structure of this new international system will sit above – in other words, it will supersede the prior internal and external national legal structures of the states parties that sign the “Pact for the Future” agreement and its annexes.
This is precisely the political and organizational structure implemented in Europe as the European Union, where formerly independent nation-states no longer control their own internal and external affairs but, rather, must defer to the centralized decisions of a European Council, which is neither elected nor accountable to the citizens of those nation states.
To put it another way, in the final days of the Biden-Harris administration, it is likely that the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America will be legally subjugated by executive agreement to a new “international system” centered around the United Nations, its “partner” the World Economic Forum, and the network of global public-private partnerships and non-governmental organizations that will set policy agendas for this “international system.”
The U.S. Senate will stand by and do nothing, just like it did nothing when Obama executed U.N. Agenda 2030 as an executive agreement.
The agenda for the summit consists of the following:
- 22 September 10 a.m. – 1 p.m.: Transforming global governance and turbocharging the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
- 22 September 3 p.m. – 6 p.m.: Enhancing multilateralism for international peace and security.
- 23 September 10 a.m. – 1 p.m.: Towards a Common Digital Future: strengthening inclusive innovation and cooperation to bridge the digital divides.
- 23 September 3 p.m. – 6 p.m.: The Future Starts Now: enhancing the global system for current and future generations.
READ: January 6 watchdog Julie Kelly and husband donated $130k to Democrats: report
International agreements are formal understandings or commitments between two or more countries. An agreement between two countries is called “bilateral,” while an agreement between several countries is “multilateral.” The countries bound by an international agreement are called “states parties.”
According to the U.S. government, a treaty is any legally binding agreement between states (countries) under international law. A treaty can be called a convention, a protocol, a pact, an accord, etc.; the content of the agreement, not its name, makes it a treaty.
This situation is reminiscent of the U.N. Agenda 2030 agreement, which President Barack Obama approved as an “executive agreement” at the very end of his second term. Despite a lack of Senate consideration and approval of a resolution of ratification, as a consequence of this executive agreement, U.N. Agenda 2030 is considered binding on the United States under international law.
It currently appears highly likely that the Biden-Harris administration will agree to and execute these “Summit of the Future” pact documents as executive agreements, thereby bypassing and avoiding Senate review and concurrence. Once executed, these pacts will create internationally binding legal terms and conditions between the United States government, the U.N., and the other signatories that will supersede federal and state law.
International treaties supersede state laws. The “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land,” and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.
However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government’s enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights – of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution. In that case, it is the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court to exercise the power of judicial review: the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.
In theory, the United States Constitution provides 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” (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ”the supreme Law of the Land.”
The Senate does not ratify treaties. Following consideration by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate either approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).
READ: What are Western values and how do we restore them?
The Senate has considered and approved for ratification all but a small number of treaties negotiated by the president and his representatives. In some cases, when Senate leadership believed a treaty lacked sufficient support for approval, the Senate simply did not vote on the treaty and it was eventually withdrawn by the president. Since pending treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress, they may remain under consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for an extended period.
In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These actions are called “executive agreements.” Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements still bind the states parties under international law.
The United Nations defines itself as central to the new global multilateral system which is being advanced using the “Pact for the Future,” with a specific purpose of accelerating the 17 U.N. Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals.” These goals and the associated plan are based on a belief and commitment to a global system of socialism and central planning.
The United Nations has convinced itself, and is set on convincing the world, that it has developed (without any testing or validation) “The World’s Best Plan” to “tackle” the 17 sustainable development goals defined in Agenda 2030:
In recent years, major global shocks and setbacks to progress on the Sustainable Development Goals have increasingly underscored our shared vulnerabilities. International cooperation is needed more than ever, yet our collective problem-solving mechanisms do not match the pace or scale of the challenges we face. Today’s complex, interconnected, and rapidly changing world requires a more effective multilateral system – with the United Nations at its core. — Policy Briefs, UN Common Agenda
In future essays, we will examine the details of the three key documents that comprise the “Summit of the Future” Pact/Treaty:
READ: Jerusalem’s religious leaders urge international action for peace, ‘two-state solution’
Jill and I hope that this will help you to understand the socialist/corporatist New World Order that the United Nations and its partner, the World Economic Forum, intends to impose on us shortly with the help of the Biden-Harris administration, so that you can go ahead and plan accordingly.
Because we certainly cannot rely on the U.S. Senate to do anything to protect the sovereignty and autonomy of the United States and its Constitutional Republic.
Philadelphia, 1787
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention are just leaving Independence Hall, having decided on the general structure for the new United States. A crowd had gathered on the steps of Independence Hall, eager to hear the news. A sturdy old woman (sometimes referred to as “an anxious lady”), wearing a shawl, approached Benjamin Franklin and asked him, “Well, Doctor, what do we have, a republic or a monarchy?”
Franklin replied sagely, “a republic, if you can keep it.” — Drawn from the 1787 journal of James McHenry, a convention delegate from Maryland
Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.