The Founders’ Observations on the “Board of Peace” and the Present State of the Union

By Publius – Writing from the spirit of 1787, discovered in the year 2026

To the People of the United States:

Having been transported, as it were, from our own time to this year of 2026, we have been shown two instruments that purport to govern the relations of the American republic with the wider world: an Executive Order 14375, signed by one who styles himself “President,” and a document called the “Charter of the Board of Peace.” We are told that this Board is to be a “public international organization,” endowed with legal personality, privileges, and immunities, and that the United States is to participate therein.

We confess that upon first reading, we rubbed our eyes in disbelief. For if we understand aright the compact we drafted, the Constitution for the United States of America, then such a creation as this Board finds no warrant in that instrument, and indeed strikes at the very roots of republican form of government. We therefore set down our thoughts, that the present generation may judge for themselves whether they remain a free people, or have suffered themselves to be bound by chains not forged by their own consent.

I. The Nature of the Compact

Let us begin with first principles. The Declaration of Independence, which we signed, asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. This is not a mere flourish; it is the cornerstone of all legitimate authority. When we later drafted the Constitution, we did not create a national government that would rule over the people directly in all things. Rather, we established a federal compact, a limited government of enumerated powers, leaving the mass of sovereign authority with the several States and, ultimately, with the people themselves. The Tenth Amendment, which we insisted upon, makes this explicit: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Now, where in that Constitution is there a delegation of power to create a “public international organization” with legal personality, capable of entering into contracts, acquiring property, employing staff, and immunizing itself from the jurisdiction of the States? The answer is: nowhere. The President is given the power to make treaties, but only with the advice and consent of the Senate, and only such treaties as are consistent with the Constitution. The Congress is given power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations. But neither branch is given authority to create a new sovereign that stands above the States and above the people, and that operates by its own rules, free from the checks and balances we so carefully devised.

II. The Executive Order: A Power Nowhere Granted

Executive Order 14375 purports to designate the Board of Peace as a “public international organization” entitled to certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities, pursuant to the International Organizations Immunities Act. We are not familiar with that statute, but we are told it was enacted long after our time. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that such a statute exists. The question remains: By what authority did Congress pass such a law? For if the Constitution does not grant the power to create or recognize international organizations with legal personality, then any statute purporting to do so is ultra vires, beyond the power of Congress, and void.

Moreover, the Executive Order itself reveals a startling truth: the President alone, without any involvement of the Senate or the House of Representatives, has determined that the United States shall participate in this Board. He has done so by the stroke of a pen, invoking a statute that (we are told) authorizes such designations. But this is governance by edict, not by law. In our understanding, the President’s duty is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” not to make new law, and certainly not to bind the nation to international engagements without the consent of the people’s representatives.

Consider what Blackstone wrote:

“In all tyrannical governments, the supreme magistracy, or the right of both making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men; and wherever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty.”

Here, the President alone has both made the determination to participate (a legislative act) and executed that determination (an executive act), with no check from the judiciary and no role for the legislature. This is precisely the union of powers we sought to prevent.

Charter of the Board of Peace (16 January 2025)

III. The Charter: A Constitution Without a People

Turning to the Charter itself, we find a document that purports to create an organization with all the trappings of sovereignty, yet utterly lacking in the one thing that makes sovereignty legitimate: the consent of the governed.

The Board of Peace consists of “Member States,” but these are not the sovereign States of our Union. They are entities invited by a Chairman, subject to his pleasure for renewal of membership, removable at his discretion, and bound by a charter that makes the Chairman the “final authority regarding the meaning, interpretation, and application” thereof. There is no provision for the people of any nation to have a voice in this Board’s affairs. There is no bill of rights, no protection for individual liberty, no guarantee of trial by jury. There is only the will of the Chairman and the votes of Member States, votes that can be overridden by the Chairman’s veto.

Let us examine the governance structure more closely:

• Article 3.2 establishes Donald J. Trump as the inaugural Chairman, and provides that he shall “separately serve as inaugural representative of the United States of America.” So the same man is both the head of this international body and the representative of one of its Member States. This is a confusion of roles that would have horrified our generation. Can a man serve two masters? Can he impartially preside over an organization while also advancing the interests of his own nation? The potential for conflict of interest is so obvious as to need no elaboration.
• Article 3.3 provides that the Chairman shall designate his own successor, and that replacement may occur only upon his voluntary resignation or incapacity (as determined by the Executive Board). This is monarchy, not republicanism. In a free government, leaders are chosen by the people or their representatives, not by the leader himself. The Chairman here holds a proprietary interest in the office, as if it were his personal property.
• Article 4.1 gives the Chairman sole power to select the Executive Board, composed of “leaders of global stature.” They serve at his pleasure, and their decisions are subject to his veto. This is not a board; it is a council of advisers, with no independent authority.
• Article 7 makes the Chairman the final authority on the meaning of the Charter. There is no appeal to any court, no recourse to any impartial tribunal. The Chairman is judge in his own cause, a violation of the most fundamental principle of justice.
• Article 10.2 provides that the Board dissolves at the end of every odd-numbered calendar year “unless renewed by the Chairman.” So the Chairman holds the power of life and death over the organization. If he fails to act, it dissolves. If he acts, it continues. There is no role for Member States in this decision, except that they may be notified.

In short, the Board of Peace is not a republican institution; it is a personal fiefdom. It bears the same relation to a legitimate government that a private estate bears to a commonwealth.

IV. The Subversion of State Sovereignty

But perhaps the most alarming feature of this Charter is what it does to the sovereignty of the several States. The Constitution we drafted begins with the words, “We the People of the United States,” but those “United States” were understood by all to mean the States themselves, united for certain limited purposes. Each State retained its own sovereignty, its own laws, its own courts, its own militia. The general government was given authority over matters of common concern, foreign affairs, interstate commerce, national defense, but it was never intended to absorb the States or to subordinate them to international bodies.

Yet here we have a document that purports to give an international organization legal personality within the United States, with privileges and immunities that place it beyond the reach of State laws. Article 6 of the Charter provides that the Board “shall ensure the provision of such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of its functions,” to be established in agreements with the States in which it operates. But what State would willingly surrender its jurisdiction to such a body? And if a State refuses, can the federal government compel it? The Charter does not say, but the potential for conflict is clear.

Moreover, the Board is to be funded by “voluntary” contributions, but we note a disturbing provision in Article 2.2(c): Member States that contribute more than one billion dollars within the first year are exempt from the three-year term limit. In effect, they may purchase perpetual membership. This is not voluntary contribution; it is bribery. It corrupts the principle of equal sovereignty among states and creates a class of privileged members who can buy their way into permanent influence.

What would the several States say to this? Would Virginia, or Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania, consent to be bound by decisions made in a body where a wealthy state (or a foreign nation) can buy a permanent seat? We think not. And yet the federal government, by participating in this Board, purports to bind the States to its decisions, for the Board’s “peace-building functions” could easily involve matters within State jurisdiction, such as the movement of troops, the regulation of commerce, or the imposition of economic sanctions.

V. The Erosion of Individual Liberty

Finally, we must consider the effect of this Board on the liberty of the individual. The Declaration of Independence affirms that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Governments are instituted to secure these rights, not to abridge them. And when any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

The Board of Peace, by its very structure, treats living men and women as subjects to be managed, not as sovereigns to be respected. Its “peace-building functions” are to be carried out “in accordance with international law,” but what international law? The law of nations, as we understood it, was a body of customs and treaties that governed relations between sovereign states. It did not purport to govern individuals directly. But modern “international law,” we are told, has expanded to include all manner of regulations, from human rights to environmental standards to the laws of war. And this Board, with its immunities and privileges, would operate outside the reach of domestic courts, beyond the protection of the Bill of Rights.

Imagine one who finds himself within the area of a Board of Peace operation. Perhaps his property is taken for a “peace-building” purpose. Perhaps he is detained by Board personnel. Perhaps he is subjected to some regulation or directive issued by the Board. Where does he go for redress? Not to the courts of his State, for the Board is immune. Not to the federal courts, for the Board is not a party to the Constitution. He is left with no remedy, a condition that we would have called slavery.

Blackstone wrote that “the law is the supreme power in the state.” To immunize any body from the law is to create a power above the law, which is the essence of tyranny. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof the supreme law of the land, but it does not, it cannot, elevate a foreign or international entity above that law without the consent of the people, expressed through amendment.

VI. The Question of Consent

This brings us to the central question: Have the people of the United States consented to this Board? The answer is manifestly no. They have not voted on it. Their representatives in Congress have not authorized it (except perhaps through a statute whose constitutionality we question). The States have not ratified it. The Chairman of the Board was not elected by them; he was appointed by himself, in effect, through the Charter.

The Constitution provides a process for making treaties: the President negotiates, and the Senate gives advice and consent. But even a treaty cannot contravene the Constitution. And a treaty that purports to create a supranational organization with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, powers that are not delegated to the United States, would be void as beyond the treaty power. As we wrote in The Federalist No. 75, the treaty power is:

“competent to the regulation of all those subjects which can be adjusted by negotiation and compact, in contradistinction to those which require the agency of law.”

It is not competent to create a new government.

Moreover, the Charter itself provides for its entry into force upon the consent of three States (Article 11.1). But these are not the States of the American Union; they are foreign nations. The United States, by participating, becomes one of those States. But the decision to participate was made by the President alone, without the consent of the Senate. So the United States has bound itself to this Charter without following the constitutional process for treaties. This is a direct violation of Article II, Section 2, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate for all treaties.

VII. A Warning from History

We have seen such organizations before, or rather, their precursors. The Holy Alliance, formed after the Napoleonic Wars, purported to govern the affairs of Europe on Christian principles but was in fact a league of monarchs to suppress popular movements. The Congress of Vienna redrew borders and imposed settlements without consulting the people. These were not instruments of peace; they were instruments of control.

We fought a revolution to free ourselves from such control. We declared that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And we established a Constitution that would ensure that no such power could arise within our borders without the people’s consent.

Now we see the same Constitution used to bind the people to an organization that knows no consent, that answers to no electorate, and that places itself above the law. This is not what we fought for. This is not what we died for. This is not what we bequeathed to posterity.

VIII. A Call to the People

What, then, should be done? We cannot give legal advice, for we are not of this time. But we can state principles, and leave it to the present generation to apply them.

First, recognize that you are sovereign. No man, no board, no international organization has any authority over you except that which you have delegated through your consent. If you have not consented to this Board, then it has no authority over you.

Second, demand that your representatives in Congress fulfill their duty. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse and the power to regulate commerce. If the Board seeks to operate within the United States, Congress can refuse to appropriate funds for it and can prohibit any federal officer from cooperating with it.

Third, look to your State governments. The States ARE NOT mere administrative subdivisions of the federal government; they are sovereign polities with their own constitutions, their own laws, and their own courts. If the federal government has exceeded its authority by participating in this Board, the States have the right, indeed, the duty, to resist. They can pass laws declaring the Board’s actions void within their borders, and they can use their courts to protect their citizens from any encroachment.

Fourth, remember the words of the Declaration:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We do not say that such a point has been reached. But we do say that the creation of the Board of Peace, without the consent of the people, without the participation of the States, and without regard to the Constitution, is a usurpation, a step on the path toward absolute despotism.

It is for you to decide whether to suffer it or to resist.

IX. Conclusion

We are told that this Board is intended to promote peace. But peace without liberty is slavery. Peace without justice is oppression. Peace without consent is tyranny.

We established a government of laws, not of men. We established a Constitution that limits power and secures rights. We established a Union of sovereign States, each with its own people, its own laws, and its own destiny.

If this Board of Peace is allowed to stand, then all that we built is undone. The Constitution becomes a scrap of paper. The States become provinces. The people become subjects.

We pray that this does not come to pass. But if it does, we pray that the people will remember who they are, and what they are entitled to by the laws of Nature and of God.

—Publius

Contributed by: Creditor @redbeard172023 on the X platform

Link: https://x.com/redbeard172023/status/2025654940866330925?s=20