Our rights are given away by treaty all the time, in fact you may not realize this but outside of our borders our rights are almost nonexistent in other countries.
The only rights we have outside of our borders are guaranteed by those treaties you would ignore for the sake of Obama’s candidacy.
The nation we entered into the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with no longer exists, so why would we keep a treaty with a country or a government that doesn’t exist.
Do we keep treaties we signed with the Nazis with the present government of Germany?
The nation we entered into the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with no longer exists, so why would we keep a treaty with a country or a government that doesn’t exist.The ABM treaty is just one example. A more recent example is the execution Texas carried out the other day. The US has signed a treaty but the Supreme Court found that the provisions of it couldn't be carried out constitutionally. The Constitution trumped the treaty.
The only rights we have outside of our borders are guaranteed by those treaties you would ignore for the sake of Obama’s candidacy.It's not that I would ignore them, certainly not to support Obama's candidacy. It's just that the Constitution is important. The idea of giving the rights conferred by it away via treaty is unacceptable.
If Obama's not eligible because he is not a natural born citizen that's fine. If he was born on foreign soil he likely isn't. But if he was born on US soil you would have to strike at the heart of the Constitution to take his eligibility away. This election isn't so important that the Constitution should be suspended.
The only rights we have outside of our borders are guaranteed by those treaties you would ignore for the sake of Obama’s candidacy.
From 21stCentury F.T.:
A more recent example is the execution Texas carried out the other day. The US has signed a treaty but the Supreme Court found that the provisions of it couldn't be carried out constitutionally. The Constitution trumped the treaty.
It's not that I would ignore them, certainly not to support Obama's candidacy. It's just that the Constitution is important. The idea of giving the rights conferred by it away via treaty is unacceptable.
If Obama's not eligible because he is not a natural born citizen that's fine. If he was born on foreign soil he likely isn't. But if he was born on US soil you would have to strike at the heart of the Constitution to take his eligibility away. This election isn't so important that the Constitution should be suspended.
I have not read the decision about the Texas execution although I am aware the case exists--I believe from reading general law periodicals that the Court held the treaty did not preclude the execution because Texas due process complied with the treaty requirements.
The rule of law is that treaty obligations do control. But there are obviously a number of places where they do not dictate a result contrary to domestic law.
There isn't any real doubt either that even if Obama was born in the US (and I know of no real evidence that he was), there are things he can do to lose his citizenship and I assume also things he can do that would preclude him from being eligible to act as President.
However I tend to doubt that the Supreme Court is going to hold him ineligible if he was born in the US. Not actually knowing what the facts are on the subject. We can come up with hypotheticals where the argument for disqualification is stronger and might control the result.