Replies

Part of Article VI of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

-- does it not follow that there can be treaties which are inconsistent with the constitutional terms? Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?

"-- in Pursuance thereof --" is the operative phrase.
Any law or treaty that was repugnant to our Constitutions principles would be null & void. [see Marbury]

I've been in this discussion before. I agree with you whole heartedly, however, that is only valid if we make the SCOTUS enforce the law. That does not seem to happen much lately. It also hasn't been the case for many years with regard to treatys.

It's really that simple, but difficult for most to absorb. We have to be a nation of laws and not men, else we'll fail. But those laws have to be, as you point out, in pursuance to the Bill of Rights/Constitution, for the Constitution constructs the legal mechanism and contract for our elected officials to adhere to, to prevent infringement of both enumerated and non-enumerated rights of the individual.

Even without the Second Amendment, the right to self-defense is so basic that only a tyrant would suppose it was not an non-enumerated right.