Replies

I still insist that congress and the president do NOT have the authority to amend, suspend, revoke, edit, delete, suborn, or otherwise make ANY part of our constitution or bill of rights subject to U.N. mandate or treaty. A "Treaty" is not a valid means of amending our rights, the U.N. has no authority within the U.S. borders. I know, there is precedent, that does not mean that the alleged precedent is legitimate and correct. "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt "If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority in any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--and certainly would if such a right were a vital one." -- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 1861