Replies

No new constitutional amendment is necessary. The Consttution already states that the supreme law of the land is the Constitutional and laws made pursuant to it. Any interpretation to the contrary is therefore illegitimate, and is a usurpation.

Judges who rule in favor of "international law" and aginst our constitutional rights should be impeached or otherwise removed from office (as by whatever legal procedures are in place in the states for removing corrupt or incompetant judges).

It is a mistake in the long run to think that we can write into the Constitution safeguards which will grant us immunity against judicial usurpation. The safeguards are already there. What is needed is the political will to protect our rights.

Rights must be defended, and exercised, and taught, or they will be lost. A culture which decays will lose the love of its traditional liberties, and the rights which we consider part of our culture will disappear.

It is a mistake in the long run to think that we can write into the Constitution safeguards which will grant us immunity against judicial usurpation. The safeguards are already there. What is needed is the political will to protect our rights.
Rights must be defended, and exercised, and taught, or they will be lost. A culture which decays will lose the love of its traditional liberties, and the rights which we consider part of our culture will disappear.

We need both respect for the Law and the libertarian will to elect representatives who will exercise sovereignty.

Disrespect wrongful authority - then overthrow it.

Treaties ratified by the proceedures specified in the Constitution have the force of law. If we have not ratified some of these international treaties, they are not legally significant in our country.

Furthermore, we should not ratify most of those grand-sounding international codes, because they are the wosrt sort of law: they are vague, general, and applicable by almost any actions of a dictator. That is why it is very important that the public understand that good intentions count for little in framing law. Mush of the bad law in New Jersey comes from vague, sentimental wishes in out lousy state constitution, which give free reign for judges to impliment any rule they themselves think appropriate. For example, there is no reason whatsoever that a state constitution should say anything like "every child shall be given a thorogh education," when no one can define what "thorough" means. Many (if not most) of our state constitutions have gaping openings like that, which were appealing to an idealistic but somewhat stupid public; and the public pays for such mistakes almost without limit.

Let my native state (NJ) be an example: we have the worst supreme court, the most corrupt politics, and (considering our material wealth) one of the worst public education systems in the country. Our onerous tax system drives retirees out of the state, which breaks up families across generations. Our urban crime rate is exceeded only is a few places (such as Detroit or Atlanta or DC). We have no recourse to refendendum and recall, as in some Western states. Learn from the example of NJ, and beware!