To: brityank; 1Old Pro; aardvark1; a_federalist; abner; alaskanfan; alloysteel; alfons; Always Right; ..
Revival ping!
I still hold that any treaty that violates the bill of rights is un-ratifiable, and thus any ratification of such a treaty is moot. Unfortunately, I have little or no faith in present courts to make a correct ruling.
13 posted on
07/30/2006 4:06:54 PM PDT by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: editor-surveyor
I agree with you on the treaties. The courts should rightly rule that the constitution trumps any treaty. The law of the land is our constitution, not treaties, regardless of any twisting done by politicians and left wing judges.
14 posted on
07/30/2006 4:10:47 PM PDT by
calex59
(The '86 amnesty put us in the toilet, now the senate wants to flush it!)
To: editor-surveyor
... under the Authority of the United States ... The Authority of the United States devolves from the Constitution and its Amendments. Any Treaty that violates any provision of that Authority is void. See tag line.
19 posted on
07/30/2006 4:46:04 PM PDT by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
To: editor-surveyor
Thank you for this ping of ultimate importance!!!
24 posted on
07/30/2006 5:13:57 PM PDT by
SierraWasp
(Where's my "Cheney in '08" bumpersticker!!! He's the only one who can beat Algore!!!)
To: editor-surveyor
No, a treaty with provisions that violate the Bill of Rights is certainly eligible for ratification. Now, can those offending elements be defended in court successfully?
41 posted on
07/30/2006 6:32:07 PM PDT by
muawiyah
(-/sarcasm)
To: editor-surveyor
72 posted on
07/31/2006 3:06:11 AM PDT by
E.G.C.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson