[piytar]

I'm no lawyer, but IIRC, a two thirds vote of the Senate, if they have a quorum, then they can override the Bill of Rights.

(1) The general legal consensus is no, it can't with respect to "fundamental rights." Thanks to the last two big SCOTUS cases on the 2nd, the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.

(2) This case ruled that the 10th protected an American from a law passed under the auspices of the "1993 Chemical Weapons Convention," a Senate ratified treaty. So no again.

[Carry_Okie]

(1) The general legal consensus is no, it can't with respect to "fundamental rights." Thanks to the last two big SCOTUS cases on the 2nd, the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.

Property rights are fundamental. The Endangered Species Act supposedly derives its authority to curtail private property rights without compensation by treaty.

(2) This case ruled that the 10th protected an American from a law passed under the auspices of the "1993 Chemical Weapons Convention," a Senate ratified treaty. So no again.

Same problem. I wouldn't take away too much on this ruling, as this looks to me like a Court that can't keep its story straight, treating issues of Federalism in a manner similar to "selective incorporation." That the author treats Wickard v. Filburn as anything less than an abomination shows how dangerously far we've slid as regards the latitude of the court.

[MrB]

What, then, is your opinion on the UN Rights of the Child treaty?

Could it override the constitutions of states and take away parental rights?

Michael Farris strongly believes so.

[Still Thinking]

(2) This case ruled that the 10th protected an American from a law passed under the auspices of the "1993 Chemical Weapons Convention," a Senate ratified treaty. So no again.

Ooh, I didn't catch that implication. It's like getting to open the same present twice!