Don't know if you were pinged, but this will singe your feathers....
while American men and women remain unemployed!
Oh, it did indeed. Instead of indulging in another rant I wondered "What exactly are the President's duties toward preserving sovereignty?"
The Constitution is specific about his leading the Executive Branch, waging war with Congressional approval, veto powers, etc., but makes no directives toward HOW to lead. His oath of office is not about protecting and serving our country, just the Constitution itself. You and any other sane person would believe that all laws are de facto extensions of that Constitution as we're taught in school (probably not anymore but that's another issue).
Dubya seems, like his father, hellbent on placing treaties over the Constitution. According to Free Republic's linked Constitution Org, this is flatly denied:
"In addition to the written document and the Common Law, the Constitution also includes Treaties, which, although they are valid only insofar as they are not in conflict with the written Constitution, are superior to both the Common Law and to State constitutions and laws, to the extent that those might be in conflict with the Treaties. Thus, some of the Treaties that have been adopted extend and clarify some of the rights, powers, and duties provided in the written Constitution." Seems clear enough, doesn't it?
"I'll take "Things Government Doesn't Want Us To Know" for $200, Alex"
Back in 1914 Woodrow Wilson wanted to enact a treaty with England regarding migratory bird protections (it's always the small stuff). Congress challenged him over assuming powers that weren't his but the Supreme Court of the time went activist and backed him up. Later on Truman argued that invading Korea was his duty under the United Nations Charter. The Supreme Court justified a few of their own decisions after that on the same shaky ground. Opponents in the ABA (good guys back in the day) looked closely at the UN Charter and crapped their collective pants. They and riled conservative congressmen crafted the Bricker Amendment, named after the Ohio Senator who championed it (there you go, Ohioan). It was written to clear up ambiguities that had been abused and to clarify that no treaty will supersede the Constitution or the Bill of Rights under any circumstances. Furthermore, final approval of treaties would depend on Congressional approval. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Wrong. The Eisenhower Administration, or more specifically John Foster Dulles, bitterly resented any measure that would constrain the powers of the Executive Branch. Party loyalists along with New Deal Democrats barely defeated a weakened version of the amendment by one vote. Click here for the whole sordid story.
Ike was an exceptionally moral and wise leader on the world stage whom no one could doubt when it came to America's interests (Operation Wetback-Let's do it again!). Unfortunately for us succeeding presidents (with the possible exception of Reagan) have not been as diligent. Some seem to strive for our reduction to a mere state in a hemispheric coalition whose only commonality is unrestricted trade. The treaties leading to this fate depend on our virtual erasure of national borders and concepts of sovereignty. We need to revive and push the Bricker Amendment to counter this threat to our nation's survival and insure our progeny will inherit the America we grew up in.