Posted on 02/27/2023 3:32:05 AM PST by RandFan
@RepThomasMassie
Treaties don’t override our Constitution.
If a treaty purports to supersede our Constitution, that treaty is unenforceable.
It’s seditious to promote the idea that a President and 67 Senators have license to void the Constitution or any of our laws.
#WHO #NATO
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Absolutely.
But how to enforce?
What part of the constitution?
I think he’s referring the proposed WHO pandemic treaty and the NATO one
“Is he right, Freepers?’
I think he is right, at least at one time in the dim dark past he would have been right.
But in today’s post Constitutional United States, the courts go with the flow.
Sorta like some churches.
It helps to frame things using simple black and white hypotheticals. Say we enter a treaty with Saudi Arabia that recognizes and permits the enslavement of blacks globally. Does that mean blacks in America can be put in chains and sold as property?
If not, why not? After all there's a treaty.
Exactly.
ARTICLE VI
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The hierarchy specified above is
1) Constitution
2) Federal laws
3) Treaties
4) State Constitutions
5) State laws.
and the NATO one
Referring to NATO vs the Constitution the question came up and was settled. In NATO the US considers an attack on one of its allies as an attack on itself, but will not automatically declare war since under the Constitution that power resides solely with Congress.
The nations of Western Europe wanted assurances that the United States would intervene automatically in the event of an attack, but under the U.S. Constitution the power to declare war rested with Congress.
Negotiations worked toward finding language that would reassure the European states but not obligate the United States to act in a way that violated its own laws.
the United States...agreed to consider attack against one an attack against all, along with consultations about threats and defense matters.
Did that pass the Senate?
The US could “sign” whatever treaty they want. But without the Senate’s approval…it’s moot.
Discussion (with case citations) of where the authority to terminate a treaty resides
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-1-10/ALDE_00012961/
From the above precedents, where in some cases the President was deemed to have independent power to abrogate a treaty, puts treaties below federal law (which the president does NOT have independent power to cancel).
Federal laws do not trump state laws if the power is not enumerated to the feds within the constitution.
Yes, he is correct.
This clause is often misunderstood. Treaties ratified by the Senate ‘outrank’ state constitutions, not the U.S. Constitution. Of course before the 17th Amendment, Senators were representatives of their states’ legislatures/governments, so the states had at least an indirect say on treaties.
People have to remember that the presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court exist because of the Constitution. As such, they do not have power that exceeds the Constitution.
Jurisdiction: juris - the law, diction - to say. The right to say what the law is.
Who’s jurisdiction are you under - the ever increasing, all consuming statutes written by a corporate (fictitious) largely unelected bureaucracy or under the unchanging natural law given by God which was affirmed by the organic constitution of 1787?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? On paper? Do you have the right to say what version of law you demand to be under?
U.S. Citizens on paper (your birth certificate printed on bond paper) are the property of the government, United States Incorporated and have no say so about jurisdiction.
An American State National on paper has reclaimed common/natural law jurisdiction by publicly recording and notarizing lawful documents expatriating from the corporate (fictional) system.
Natural law simply says if there is no victim, there is no crime.
https://tasa.americanstatenationals.org/
Executive orders do. In what freedom loving country would a single person support anyone who gave us mail in ballots, lockdowns, masking travel restrictions, unless you’re an unvetted Syrian, bumpstock ban.
Now the mechanism used to push covid is being used to cut off breasts and chemically castrate preteens.
More freedom lost in 2 years and now we are at the bottom of the slippery slope.
And they are just getting warmed up.
98% of Americans obey without question or even a period of time to debate, and took the vax.
85% is holocaust level obedience without question.
Critical institutions such as healthcare and defense have been #Purged of rational thinking people.
From that wording:
The "Authority of the United States" is defined and limited by the Constitution, and a treaty can be ruled unconstitutional. Whether the courts would agree with this argument, I don't know.
I like that perspective. Even the Supreme justices when they make a ruling.
I think it’s the correct position
A Treaty can not violate our GOD given Bill of Rights that come from GOD.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Thus, the pecking order is as follows:
1) Constitution
2) Federal law
3) Treaty
4)State Constitutions
5) State law
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.