To: wolfman23601
I would rather have a constitutional amendment that specifically states that all treaties are subject to the Constitution. Precedent is far to easily overturned by activist judges.
To: taxcontrol
Agreed. I’d actually like an amendment banning treaties altogether.
To: taxcontrol
"I would rather have a constitutional amendment that specifically states that all treaties are subject to the Constitution. Precedent is far to easily overturned by activist judges." No need to because the Constitution is not subject to subordination to the UN or any other nation regardless of the whims of the UN, Zero, or Hillary. They cannot circumvent the Bill of Rights even though they imply they can. I'll stand by that statement.
13 posted on
07/09/2012 12:42:14 PM PDT by
Old Badger
(Don't bother me! I still like Palin because she will tell like it is! (Newt too!))
To: taxcontrol
I would rather have a constitutional amendment that specifically states that all treaties are subject to the Constitution. I second that.
29 posted on
07/09/2012 2:19:17 PM PDT by
Carry_Okie
(The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson