One of those ideas, in years gone by, moved men to declare: "No King but King Jesus," a phrase that was most prominent in the war for American Independence. The phrase was the embodiment of an idea that placed God first and allowed that every other aspect of life would fall into proper order. Indeed, Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828 defines sovereignty thusly: "Supreme power; supremacy; the possession of the highest power,.....Absolute sovereignty belongs to God only." Dictionaries define the meaning of words as understood by the citizenry of its time. Hence the average man living in the 1700s' would acknowledge: "Absolute sovereignty belongs to God only".

Removing the notion that God always comes first was a labor pain on the road to the new order that came and went with little notice. In today's modern, fast paced world the average person, if asked about the absence of this thought from our dictionaries, would probably wonder: "why are you asking me this question?"

As you might have guessed, sovereignty is the topic of this Mustard Seed Newsletter. We have established the meaning of the word "sovereignty" from two hundred years ago, and it should be noted that our country has received providential blessing beyond measure. Move the clock forward to 1966 and open the Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition. Turning to page 1395 you will find: "sovereignty: 1. The state or quality of being sovereign. 2. The status, dominion, or authority of a sovereign. 3. Supreme and independent political authority:"

Leaving God out of the concept of sovereignty allows for disorder not only in governmental affairs but in our personal affairs as well. To illustrate this point, all we need do is observe society. The common-use language of today includes words that 25 years ago were not tolerated. TV seems to dote on depicting real-life immorality, violence and depravity. Examples are endless.

The effects on our country from the absence of this concept by those who serve in government is not apparent unless we understand how the full scope of sovereignty is needed. The following point may help in understanding the need for a return to the earlier meaning acknowledging that God is sovereign.

The United States and its allies created the United Nations in the mid 40's. The U. N. Charter established within that body the U. N. Security Council. States formally endorsing the U. N. Charter, (currently 189) have endowed the Security Council with the obligation to maintain world peace and security.

Article 24

"In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf."

The Security Council is the "agent" of the principle. When questions of world peace and security arise, 189 states have declared the Security Council to be their agent.

Article 25

"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in Accordance with the present Charter."

The principle (that's the US and the other 188 states) declared that they would do the bidding of the Security Council, when issues of world peace and security are involved.

Article 48

"1. The action required carrying out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine."

"2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members."

Paragraph one of Article 48 declares that the Security Council may select any nation or any group of nations to carry out it's bidding.

Paragraph two of Article 48 declares that the Security Council may select any regional group of nations to carry out its bidding, in our current war on terrorism, NATO is the regional alliance that has stepped forward to enforce the edicts of the Security Council. The relationship between NATO and the United Nations is described in chapter 15 of their Handbook. The Handbook may be downloaded from NATO's website at www.nato.int .

"First, it (the United Nations Charter) provides the juridical basis for the creation of the Alliance; and second, it establishes the overall responsibility of the UN Security Council for international peace and security. These two fundamental principles are enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on 4 April 1949. The preamble to the Treaty makes it clear from the outset that the UN Charter is the framework within which the Alliance operates. In its opening phrases, the members of the Alliance reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter. In Article 1 they also commit themselves both to settling international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the goals of the Charter and to refraining from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. Article 5 of the Treaty makes explicit reference to Article 51 of the Charter in asserting the right of the signatories to take, individually or collectively, such action as they deem necessary for their self-defense, including the use of armed force; and, it commits the member countries to terminating the use of armed force in restoring and maintaining the security of the North Atlantic area when the UN Security Council has itself taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security." NATO Handbook page 339

"From 1949 to the present day, the formal link between the United Nations and the North Atlantic Alliance has remained constant and has manifested itself first and foremost in the juridical relationship between their respective founding documents. Contacts between the institutions of the United Nations and those of the Alliance were, for most of this period, extremely limited, both in scope and in content. In 1992, in the context of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the situation changed." NATO Handbook page 340

"The readiness of the Alliance to support peacekeeping operations under the authority of the UN Security Council was formally stated by NATO Foreign Ministers in December 1992. The measures already being taken by NATO countries, individually and as an Alliance, were reviewed and the Alliance indicated that it was ready to respond positively to further initiatives that the UN Secretary General might take in seeking Alliance assistance in this field." NATO Handbook page 340

Can NATO, or any regional alliance act without the Security Council's blessing? No! Not according to Article 53 of the United Nations Charter,

Article 53

1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council.

The supremacy clause of the US Constitution has been used to expand the jurisdiction of the federal government beyond the scope of the main proponents of the founding fathers. This has included the transfer of our sovereign right of self-defense from our elected representatives to a global entity - the U. N. Security Council. Is this transfer lawful? The answer to this question was made clear in the Federalist Papers - a series of newspaper articles published in an effort to persuade the average individual to support the proposed new constitution. Here are two quotes:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33:

"But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. What inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule, which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed." (emphasis added)

John Jay, Federalist No. 64:

".... All constitutional acts of power, whether in the executive or in the judicial department, have as much legal validity and obligation as if they proceeded from the legislature; and therefore, whatever name be given to the power of making treaties, or however obligatory they may be when made, certain it is that the people may, with much propriety, commit the power to a distinct body from the legislature, the executive, or the judicial. It surely does not follow that because they have given the power of making laws to the legislature, that therefore they should likewise give them power to do every other act of sovereignty by which the citizens are to be bound and affected." (emphasis added)

Sovereignty is likened to a tool that is required to complete a task. The tool is unimportant until it is needed. Maintaining liberty is the task at hand and the tool is unavailable.

The Gulf war was an exercise in the maintenance of our liberty. Many thought that our forces needed to remove Sadam Hussein from the seat of power. Had we had our sovereignty at the time that may have been the direction that our government would have taken? But, the United Nations Security Council resolution 660 did not authorize any state to proceed beyond the boundaries of that resolution. We are now facing a probable war with Hussein and cohorts. The outcome, yet to be determined, may not be in America's best interest.

Don Casey