How do these two statements clash? In #224 he says, there are people in power who put treaty obligations over their duty to protect the Constitution and individual rights.
post #224,it dissolves our soverenignty. I see no clash in those two statements. Show me where I am wrong.
Post one describes an illegal usurpation of the Constitution -- a realistic danger. The Constitution would still sovereign -- the supreme power.
Post two says that the Constitution isn't the supreme power. That it can dissolved by a simple vote of congress and a simple stroke of the presidential pen.