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

To: CitizenUSA
Don't blather that at me like I don't know about the Supremacy Clause. Your problem is that it reads two ways because of the placement of commas, an ambiguity I believe was deliberate.

I suggest you read, carefully, this article which goes into those legal distinctions, as I wrote them both.

The article’s author also misreads Hamilton’s intentions.

Poppycock. The United States was in debt to the point that it could not afford sufficient defense to preclude its reconquest. The French had dictated terms for loans because under the Articles of Confederation there was no way for the United States to assure that they would be repaid. The result is history.

72 posted on 10/29/2013 10:07:19 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (ZeroCare: Make them pay; do not delay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: Carry_Okie

The article claims Hamilton wanted much easier standards to pass treaties, because he wanted the ability to supersede the US Constitution. That’s certainly one possible interpretation, but it’s also possible he wanted lesser standards simply because he believe treaties couldn’t override constitutional provisions. That’s certainly a possible interpretation, too, and I think it’s a more reasonable one.

The Supremacy clause is pretty clear regardless of the so-called ambiguous placement of commas. You want me to believe the founders created a complex and extremely difficult hurdle for constitutional amendments, but they wanted to amend the Constitution with treaties using a simple 2/3 vote of senators? Sorry, I’m not buying that.

We can agree to disagree.


75 posted on 10/29/2013 10:34:38 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Conservatives are not anarchists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | 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