Posted on 06/19/2006 7:37:30 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
I guess I agree that the court has jurisdiction because of this clause, to hear cases in which treaties and the constitutional issues are raised, but I do not know if that applies to the substantive interpretation of the supremacy of the treaty clause or the equality of the treaty clause, or the inferiority of the treaty clause vis-a-vis the the Bill of Rights.
For eaxample, did anyone ever say taht if the US ientered into a treawty at the UN that said there could be no possession of firearms (in assumed violation of the 2nd amendment) I assume I could take the issue to the courts to determine if that treaty worked to take my weapon away from me.
But when the court decides between the 2nd Amendment and the treaty, who wins? I would hope that the court would always say that any provision in any treaty that violates any right in the Bill of Rights is void ab initio.
Would Clinton appointees who rely on foreign precedent always rule in favor of the Bill of Rights? Some argue in favor of eliminating the death penalty as a violation of due process that other governments now ban the death penalty. They use foreign precedent to justify their own views on constitutional interpretations.
How much further is the leap to say that the treaty trumps the Bill of Rights?
If they violate the constitution, the only way they could take effect is through an ammendment... which would require 2/3 of the states
Yes, when did they give up professional wrestling?
From your lips...
Come on over and learn what Bush is doing with the CFRs plan.
We have to set up the courts and the legislatures and figure out whom in the secret conspiracy to reveal to the public.
Hey buddy, if you leak any conspirator's name the secret police of NAFTA will arrest you. Under the terms of the secret agreement you are liable to be prosecuted without a trial and without representation.
You nailed that 100%!
LLS
Sen. John Kerry bump
BTTT!
You have to remember that we elected them to follow the rules. The reason we wrote the U.S. Constitution was to create a mechanism to protect our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which we proclaimed before the Constitution was written. If our employees have a problem with that, we'll just have to fire them and replace them with those who have better reading and comprehension skills.
The Constitution is not a charter for tyranny, nor did we surrender the document to our our elected officials. So by what logic or reason do our employees think they can surrender our charter to a foreign power? It does not belong to them. It belongs to We the People -- individually and collectively.
Add me to any ping list for this subject, please. Thx.
Are treaties voted upon by the several States? I thought that applied only to ratification of Constitutional amendments.
What challenges could be filed in this court would be defined, I suppose, by how deep the political integration goes. If it's mainly with regard to trade and other economic matters, we could dodge the bullet, so to speak. If it's more comprehensive, then watch out!
I would think being as stupid as you are would hurt very much indeed.
**lol@self
fridge=fringe
They would take effect first, then the Supreme Court would rule on Constitutionality. And it's 3/4 of the states for an amendment. So, other than those small errors. You're right on track. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.