SOOOOO what treaty overides Gualalupe Hidalgo?. And why is Bush so careful to avoid titling them as Treaties instead preferring to call them AGREEMENTS when they have all the criteria of Treaties. He must be really afraid of that Constitutional 2/3rds Senate ratification.
"SOOOOO what treaty overides Gualalupe Hidalgo?"
You tell me. While you're doing that, suppose you tell me how Guadalupe Hidalgo is being breached? Yes, the border established by that treaty is porous, but that's a matter of law, not treaties. It's the feds' responsibility to enforce the border laws. If they're not doing that, then it's not really a treaty matter.
You may remember that Congress went right along with NAFTA. I haven't seen any serious calls for it to be abandoned. Too much money working there.
Money drives this nation, not politics. I see you're not from Texas. Go down there, sit in a country club bar somewhere near the border. You'll hear lots of talk about the Messicans and how they're ruining everything.
Then, follow one of the loudest of the complainers to his business the next day. Count the number of employees speaking Spanish.
Lots of folks say one thing and do something else. It's how it works. Money wins.
Re your: "He must be really afraid of that Constitutional 2/3rds Senate ratification."
According to Senate rules--as long as no one calls for a quorum or a recorded vote--a treaty can be ratified by voice vote or show of hands, late in the day, with as few as 3 people present...
It's been done before: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a32124944be.htm and I expect it'll be done again. In the link above, please see my #'s 141 (pathetically naive) and #211 (beginning to catch on). Rowdee's #207 lays out the legal details.