Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Vendome

Well, the Constitution does say that treaties are legally binding, so you’re painting a false dichotomy between treaties and the Constitution. That’s why we need to actually withdraw from these treaties. I agree with the libs on one thing on this issue: the rule of law matters. So we need to change the law and keep pretending we care whether a few terrorists get dunked in the water.


17 posted on 04/28/2009 2:45:41 PM PDT by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: BackInBlack
Yes treaties are legal binding but they cannot abrogate the lawful Constitution of a treaty state. In fact, all treaties have a disclaimer stating as much.

In fact, if you read the inter-American weapons treaty that Obama wants the Senate to ratify, it spells out explicitly that it is limited by the Constitution of ratifying states. Moreover the US Constitution prohibits international treaty from abrogating US Constitutional law. The Senate can abrogate or vacate an international treaty with the same 2/3rds vote that is required to ratify.

19 posted on 04/28/2009 2:57:58 PM PDT by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson