I’ve been seeing a new conspiracy theory popping up with increasing frequency—mostly related to the campaign of Ron Paul—and felt that it would be worthwhile to capture the debunking in one spot to make things a little easier. The theory follows the line of thinking best summarized in a WorldNetDaily ad:

The reason I call this out is because the whole story is looooong (really long) on hyperbole and emotional invective, but very short on actual facts. Where facts may be used, they appear mostly for the purpose of being taken out of context to make a point that otherwise has no basis in reality. It follows the same tracks as most conspiracy theories by posing unanswered or unanswerable questions and then inserting whatever hyperbolic or tangentially related answer that will elicit the most emotional response.

The NAU/Amero boogeyman is just that … a boogeyman. Yes, as part of NAFTA and other trade agreements, there are efforts to open economic in-roads between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. But the NAU has absolutely no force of effect in the U.S., it does not undermine, violate, or supersede the U.S. Constitution, and our sovereignty is not at risk. And the “Amero” is an Internet myth that has been repeatedly debunked. But it receives perpetuation from people like Hal Turner who insist that the government is orchestrating a campaign of misinformation to discredit him and his fantastic claims.

Of course, no conspiracy theory is complete without a call to immediate over-reaction and the tagline about something that they [whoever "they" are] “don’t want you to know.” However, from the story, it isn’t clear who “they” are—are “they” the Illuminati? Bush & Co.? The U.S. Government? Or is it some greater “powerful elite” for which none of us have the secret code/handshake/membership? Nor is it clear what action should be taken since this matter is not before Congress or the courts. However, there is a mindset gaining support which poses the question of whether we will “finally get to see what the Second Amendment really means.”

First, nothing has been signed that has any force of effect to implement the NAU in a manner contrary to U.S. law. In fact, nothing has been signed, period. No law, no treaty, nothing.

Second, even IF Bush had signed something, such as the NAU agreement, it still has no meaning because his signature means diddly squat without the consent of Congress. Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties are the “supreme law of the land” when made, “under the authority of the United States.” The “authority of the United States,” specifically to enter into treaties which would be binding law in the U.S. requires the president to receive 2/3 Senate approval (Art. II, sect. 2).

But you may ask “what about presidential signing statements?” Presidential signing statements have been tested at the U.S. Supreme Court and, for the most part, struck down. Their relative value in interpreting how the law is reviewed by a court is meaningless, and the nearly unanimous position of the American Bar Association is that they violate the U.S. Constitution and the principles of “separation of powers” (a.k.a., “bicameralism”). However, for the purpose of edification, here’s the factual basis of how signing statements are understood by the legal system: Working backwards, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to credit signing statements in reviewing U.S. laws (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 584 U.S. ___ (2006)), and struck down signing statements used as a “line item veto” to nullify or modify a part of a law passed by Congress (Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)). Where deference has been granted to the executive branch, as in Chevron USA, Inc. v. Nat’l Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), deference is only granted insofar as the interpretation is “reasonable” and Congress has not addressed the issue directly via legislation. Before that, we have to go back to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) and the U.S. Constitution which both clearly state that legislative power is solely vested in Congress (meaning only Congress can make laws), and judicial review of the U.S. Constitution or duly-enacted laws is solely vested in the judicial branch. Those holding out the idea of signing statements meaning anything more than the petulant whim of an ignorant spoiled brat of a president are in a very decidedly small (and shrinking) minority.

Moreover, the U.S. Constitution prohibits any state from entering into a treaty with a foreign government–meaning Texas can’t enter into a treaty with Mexico and Alaska can’t enter into a treaty with Kamchatka/Russia/Canada.

Ultimately, the NAU/Amero kerfuffle is still missing one of two things necessary to mean anything substantive to the U.S. To have ANY meaning at all, this “New World Order” suicide pact is required to have:

1. Two-thirds approval of the U.S. Senate (and a review of their schedule doesn’t show it coming up for debate), or;

2. Successful passage of a constitutional amendment that makes one of the following changes:

   1. Amend the supremacy clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution to make the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law subservient to the “New World Order,” or;

   2. Simultaneously amend Article I of the U.S. Constitution to divest Congress of their power as the sole lawmaking body of the U.S. government, and amend Article II of the U.S. Constitution to grant the president the ability to make law.

Thus far, I haven’t seen any of those conditions met. Until one of those things happens, lamentations about the Amero and a “New World Order” are nothing more than a lot of Chicken Little running around screaming that the sky is falling.