To: Toddsterpatriot
I guess a link backing up your assertion would be too much to ask for?
Lets not get silly with a copy and paste link war. I can post many links supporting my statement and you can post many links supporting yours.
In the International Court of Justice case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. acknowledged that treaties ratified by the Senate were part of American law. Nonetheless, under the U.S. Constitution, the power to interpret the law and treaties "is vested in one Supreme Court" he said.
In other words, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if a particular treaty will be allowed to supercede the Constitution.
I don't like it and I'm sure you don't like it but that's the way it is in the real world.
.
83 posted on
07/26/2006 10:38:24 PM PDT by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: mugs99
Lets not get silly with a copy and paste link war. I can post many links supporting my statement and you can post many links supporting yours.Yeah, posting facts to back up your assertions is such a bother.
Nonetheless, under the U.S. Constitution, the power to interpret the law and treaties "is vested in one Supreme Court" he said.
OMIGOD!! You're right, that's unconstitutional!! ROFLOL!
In other words, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if a particular treaty will be allowed to supersede the Constitution.
I think you meant to say it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if a treaty is constitutional.
85 posted on
07/27/2006 6:28:16 AM PDT by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: mugs99
I can post many links supporting my [INTERPOL]
statement and you can post many links supporting yours. Just one will suffice. Thanks in advance.
88 posted on
07/27/2006 8:01:42 AM PDT by
1rudeboy
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson