Replies

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.

If you are citing that a treaty can trump the Constitution of the United States, you are wrong.

The bolded area speaks specifically of the Constitution being the law of the land and that laws and treaties made must be made under that law.

To make a treaty that sits outside the Constitution would be in violation of the Constitution.

Also, the next line "and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" speaks only about state laws and constitutions, not the Constitution, itself.

“To make a treaty that sits outside the Constitution would be in violation of the Constitution.”

***************
Call and tell your senators it is against the constitution!

paragraph 2 at the link:
http://theintelhub.com/2010/09/22/17314/

HR 3534 is a thinly disguised permanent roadblock to American energy which drives American companies out of the Gulf, delays future drilling, increases dependency on foreign oil, implements climate change legislation and youth education programs; but most important, it mandates membership in the Law of the Sea Treaty without the required two-thirds vote to ratify it in the U.S. Senate. Read more at LOST below

Emphasis on WITHOUT 2/3 ratification vote.

Actually, SCOTUS disagrees with IYAS9YAS and agrees with Red Badger. There was a case in the 1930s interpreting (applying?) a Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada. Litigants claimed that their 2nd Amendment RTKBA was infringed by provisions outlawing the hunting of Canadian geese flying over the US. SCOTUS essentially placed the treaty on a par with the Constitutional provision and, since the treaty was the later enactment, used well-recognized appellate standards to apply the treaty provisions in derogation of the 2nd Amendment RTKBA.

I learned this in law school which was a while back and, while freely acknowledging that this outrage is not on the top of my stack of things to obsess over, I do not believe that the SCOTUS decision in question has ever been overturned, modified or superseded.

This matter is a ticking time bomb which suggests that a treaty which purports to void the entire Bill of Rights would, if ratified, actually do so with no more than the signature of some Demonrat POTUS and 2/3 ratification by Demonrat and RINO Senators.