So these bastards will try to shove this up our collective a$$-s in a “lame duck” session.
At least we have this: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
“... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,
“The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”
That’s all well and good, but somebody has to ENFORCE the Constitution. We currently have a sitting President who by all the evidence so far (including his fraudulent ‘birth certificate’) is not eligible to be President and everyone is looking the other way and sitting on their hands. If the Rat B*st*rds in the Senate ratify this thing, no one is going to do diddly squat about it .... and they do vote for stuff they know is unconstitutional .... Obamacare being the most agregious example that immediately comes to mind.
That's the way the START treaty was handled in 2010.
I think it’s cute that you can quote the Constitution with Reid’s Senate and Obama’s Administration in charge.