[GrandEagle]

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.

[tpaine]

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.

The question is: -- can there be law/treaties which are inconsistent with the constitution?
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 treaties.

Practically every dispute on FR boils down to this same question: -- can government [at any level] enact or enforce laws [or treaties] that infringe on our basic rights to life, liberty, or property?

The answer of course is no.. -- What is truly amazing is how many here find 'conservative' ways to dispute that point.