[Carry_Okie]

Bush’s fault.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

The decision provided a bonus which sustains our worries about Article VI in the constitution that you've written about at length. In short, SCOTUS just resolved officially that infamous ambiguity.

To help fill in, let me highlight the stinker in the supremacy clause in Article VI. This is the ambiguity which you have demonstrated has been construed to favor the growth of centralized power at the expense of individual protections through exploitation of treaties.

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

This clearly states that treaties overrule the constitution or laws of any state, and forces judges to treat them that way. The ambiguity that was never cleared up was: “does that include the federal constitution and its laws or only that of the states?”

Since SCOTUS has just now construed that “State” can mean the federal government, it has officially ended the matter of that ambiguity.

IIRC, you observed in your works that since 1940 that ambiguity was already construed that way. The point is that it was only treated that way and they dared not state it openly until last week. The Progressives were craven back then; now they are openly brazen.

This new clarity ought aid us in battles against the trade agreement. However, with this new brazen authoritarianism we are facing, facts matter to our rulers as much as the Pope's admonitions mattered to Stalin.