Posted on 09/20/2012 6:06:39 AM PDT by raptor22
Good... admittedly I cannot decipher the language in Article V (the reason for my suggested amendment).
Treaty trumps state law. Later treaty trumps earlier federal law. Later federal law trumps earlier treaty if it is clear that it is meant to do so.
The way I look at it is that Obama and his administration is has turned out to be Tammany hall on the Federal scale and this treaty is the Sullivan Act.
It’s designed to make the citizens helpless before the criminals, both those wearing uniforms and those wearing gang colors. These guys are in favor of the criminals, not the citizens who get preyed upon from both sides of the legal spectrum.
Maybe we should just refuse to sign treaties and end all these entangling alliances.
Maybe when outraged Americans do worse to the UN and the denizens therein than what the Muzzies did in Cairo and Benghazi to us then this nonsense will stop.
As far as the UN’s people? I want them dead, I want their families dead, I want their Secretariat building burned to the ground.
“Danger Will Robinson, Danger”
If it is just fearmongering I’m all for it.
If this scares enough people into the voting booth to vote for Romney, what’s the problem?
Only to the extent that they do not conflict with the Constitution. A Treaty cannot amend the Constitution (or there'd be treaties all over the place doing just that) and any enforcement attempt should be deemed Unconstitutional by a competent court (and therein lies the problem).
The day may come we’ll have to “use them or lose them”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.