see post 12.
all of our soldiers swear an oath. if it has not changed since my day, it requires the soldier to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
this UN nonsense, if they tried to enact it, would be a clear and obvious attack on the sovereign and republican form of government the Constitution details, as excerpted above.
QED - no soldier could obey the UN and his oath.
Well Private New tried to fight UN command/controll and he got courtmarshalled.
Every LEO in the country takes such oaths. I'm not seeing much sign that they understand, much less abide by the implications.
It's one thing to have the UN order the soldier and have him disobey. It's quite another for a Federal judge and/or the DOJ to issue an unconstitutional order based upon an inference derived from an unratified treaty and then ask that soldier to intervene against police enforcement of the order.
Sorry to sound cynical, but what difference does an oath make any more? Remember Waco?
We've got States enforcing provisions of Kyoto. We've got judges ruling on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We've got environazi bureaucrats defrauding people out of their land (usually with authority derived from treaty law as well)...
Oaths you say?
I'm so glad you posted this! Thanks.
Allegiance to the U. S. Constitution, not a person!
Praise the Lord for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers!