Arrrrgh! No disrespect indended to anyone, but good heaven's people, don't you remember recent history? Also, don't you ever read the finer points of the Constitution?
Once again, Bill Clinton signed the ICC treaty in the late 1990's. The Republican Senate did not ratify it, and when President Bush took office in 2001, he revoked Clinton's signature, effectively removing the U.S. as a signatory. All Obama has to do is sign the existing treaty and re-submit it to the Senate for ratification. This Senate WILL ratify it.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes ratified treaties the law of our land. There would be NOTHING unconstitutional in the ICC treaty if it was ratified by the Senate.
That’s what I said.
You can argue that it’s against the SPIRIT of the Constitution and the Founders to subordinate our rights to outside authorities, but it would be strictly legal. And as I also said, you can bet that whatever it said in the treaty would be stretched further by liberal judges and politicians as time went by, which is what has happened with the Geneva Convention.
Where further issues might arise would be if the International Court passed measures that directly violated “inalienable” rights given in the Constitution, such as a ban on religious expression or freedom of speech. But that’s a worry for the future, and in any case we seem to be doing pretty well having those rights carved away slice by slice without any foreign help.
“There would be NOTHING unconstitutional in the ICC treaty if it was ratified by the Senate.”
We no longer live under the rule of law. It doesn’t matter what the senate passes or obuma signs. The old North Bridge is coming into view. Get ready.