They're more like guideline.
When the massacre begins, he needs to be the first to be tried for disobeying what he swore to protect, our Constitution.
I will be interested to see how the Senate Democrats react to this. They may be all Democrats, but they also have big egos. And I don’t think they will take kindly to Obama taking their power from them.
Can we cut throught the bullshit for a second? Has there been an administration in the last 50 years that has viewed the Consitution as anything other than optional?
Have any of the Start Treaties ever been ratified?? I don’t think so....
Impeachment? yeah, right. Obama could shoot Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh between the eyes as part of the televised Super Bowl halftime show and the gangsters in the House wouldn’t impeach him.
Bush should have been impeached for failing to enforce our border and immigration laws.
Obama should have been impeached on general principles as soon as he took office.
Americans have become gutless, spineless wimps. Will never happen.
Contracts, laws, and any decisions made by people in the past
are inherently void when in conflict with contemporary decisions of the elite.
This is how leftists view the world.
yeah...right...who is going to author this...Nancy, Reid, Franken?
there needs to be a congressional overhaul in 2010 first.
By 'massacre', do you mean Nuclear war? If such a massacre began, there's be few left to hold a trial. And the Constitution would be set aside, with the Presidency in Obama's hands until he felt satisfied to return to the Constitution.
I think BO is highly dangerous to the freedom enshrined in our Constitution.
I do have to think, though, that the CONGRESS, even the LIBERAL CONGRESS will be very hesitant to cede their powers to the TOTUS.
A liberal Congress wanting to keep its powers may be what keeps us from complete dictatorship. On the other hand, Bambi has been known to “make alliances” that give him power and make his allies THINK they’re getting something in return.
BO is a threat to our security.
Obama knows that he won’t get impeached, he could put the document through a shredder literally and the Democrats will not vote for impeachment. He’s safe until 2010 no matter what he does and he knows it.
Way to go america.
The Bricker Amendment
By Justin Raimondo
The problem of international treaties superseding the U.S. Constitution and undermining the foundations of our Republic is not a new one. The conservative movement of the early 1950’s, which looked on the United Nations with extreme suspicion, was particularly sensitive to this threat — and they hit upon a solution: the Bricker Amendment.
Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the “Bricker Amendment” to the Constitution read as follows:
* Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
* Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
* Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
* Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Mobilizing to support Bricker, conservatives built a grand coalition which included all the major veterans groups, the Kiwanis Clubs, the American Association of Small Business, many women’s groups, as well as the conservative activist organizations of the time, such as the Freedom Clubs and the Committee for Constitutional Government. The conservative press joined in the campaign; writing in Human Events, Frank Chodorov said that
The proposed amendment arises from a rather odd situation. A nation is threatened by invasion, not by a foreign army, but by its own legal entanglements. Not soldiers, but theoreticians and visionaries attack its independence and aim to bring its people under the rule of an agglomeration of foreign governments. This is something new in history. There have been occasions when a weak nation sought security by placing itself under the yoke of a strong one. But, here we have the richest nation in the world, and apparently the strongest, flirting with the liquidation of its independence. Nothing like that has ever happened before.
The breach in our defenses, said Chodorov, is in Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that “... All Treaties ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding.” At the time of the Founders, the division between foreign and domestic policy was clear enough; there was never any intention, as Jefferson wrote, to enable the President and the Senate to “do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”
But as the concept of limited government was eroded — and under pressure from the endless stream of pacts, covenants, and executive agreements issuing forth from the United Nations and its American enthusiasts — the chink in our constitutional armor widened. Just as the growth of administrative law had threatened to overthrow the old Republic during the darkest days of the New Deal, so under Truman and Eisenhower the burgeoning body of treaty law threatened to overthrow U.S. sovereignty. Executive agreements had created administrative law of a new type; treaties which sought to regulate domestic economic and social behavior to a degree never achieved by the Brain Trusters. If the New Deal had failed to completely socialize America, to conservatives it often seemed as if the United Nations seemed determined to finish the job. According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, human beings were endowed with all sorts of “rights,” including the right to a job and the right to “security.” There were, however, certain significant omissions, chief among them the right to own and maintain private property. Another equally glaring omission was the unqualified right to a free press, the regulation of which is left up to member nations. When three Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice, cited the UN Charter and the NATO treaty in support of their argument that Truman had the right to seize the steel mills, conservatives went into action — and the fight for the Bricker Amendment began in earnest.
The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Amendment. Leading the opposition was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. This was the same John Foster Dulles who had said, two years previous, that “The treaty power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse,” and warned that “Treaties can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the states and give them to the federal government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their Constitutional Bill of Rights.” Hammered with this quote by Clarence Manion, Dean of Law at Notre Dame University, and a leading proponent of the Bricker Amendment, Dulles could only take refuge in the argument that this President would never compromise U.S. sovereignty.
Although the Bricker Amendment started out with fifty-six co- sponsors, it eventually went down to defeat in the U.S. Senate, 42-50, with 4 not voting. (A watered-down version, the “George proposal,” lost by a single vote.) The defection of Senators William Knowland and Alexander Wiley from conservative Republican ranks on this occasion was particularly significant, and marked the beginning not only of Wiley’s chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but also the decline of the movement to put and keep America first.
As Frank E. Holman, president of the American Bar Association, and the sparkplug of the Bricker Amendment movement, wrote:
In the destiny of human affairs a great issue like a righteous cause does not die. It lives on and arises again and again until rightly won. However long the fight for an adequate Constitutional Amendment on treaties and other international agreements, it will and must be won. This will be the history of the Bricker Amendment as it has been the history of all other great issues and causes.
Holman’s comments were published in 1954 as Story of the Bricker Amendment, (The First Phase) — a title which one can only hope is prophetic.
Committee Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans home page
You may be interested in this. Obama appears to be thinking about by passing the Senate’s Constitutional duty of treaty ratification...as I thought he might do.
The problem is the Main Stream Media.
They should be all over this, holding our officials to constitutional standards.
Instead the MSM is filled with leftists homosexuals and has too much middle eastern ownership.
We need to replace the main stream media and the liberal journalism departments in the colleges where it spawns.
To impeach the 0ne, we must first impeach Congress. Not like that’s a bad thing.
“Constitution apparently declared optional by Obama administration(Grounds for impeachment brewing)”
Impeachment by who? The RAT majority in the house? Obama could run tanks over school-children and they wouldnt impeach him. And even if they did, who would remove him from office, the RAT supermajority in the Senate?
Appeaser in Chief.
Yeah, they’ll impeach him. When hell freezes over and Washington is just smouldering ruins.
With compliments to Captain Barbossa form Pirates of the Caribbean.
Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply and you’re not. And thirdly, the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner
just change the word code to constitution.