[exmarine]

You may not believe this, but international treaties ratified by the U.S. ARE the law of the land. I see Breyer talking about having to "fit" them within the Constitution, but I don't see anywhere where he says the Constitution is "subordinate" to such conventions. In other words, your headline is made up.

Are you actually defending this Breyer's comments? They're indefensible. Quite obviously, this guy has a GLOBAL bent, as does most of the people in our government. Globalism is contrary to the Constitution. American citizens are not legally accountable to any international body in any case for any reason, including the United Nothing.

Further, Congress has the power to reign in the rogue courts. Article 3, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution makes it very clear: "In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Notice "with such Exceptions...as the Congress shall make..." Congress doesn't even need the president's signature for such an action - just a simple majority vote in both houses. That's how easy it would be for the legislative branch of the federal government to rein in the judiciary.

[lugsoul]

Which comments? You claim he said the Constitution is subordinate to international agreements. I asked you where he said this, and you pointed to the Lawrence decision (which he didn't write, and which didn't say this either). I would not defend such a comment, but I haven't seen it, and the article you posted does not contain it, except in the headline authored by you. Also, point our where he said American citizens are legally accountable to international bodies. You are twisting the words to reach a conclusion that is not stated.

[lugsoul]

Whoops - didn't see that was you - okay, you didn't author the headline - but the statement in the headline is not in the article.