Again, you’re assigning evil motives to Hamilton when there are reasonable, non-evil explanations for what he proposed in regard to treaties. Those kinds of thought processes are typical for conspiracy theorists. No insult intended, but you appear to assume the worst rather than accept the simpler, more likely explanation.
You also claim I’m delusional, but my opinion (that treaties don’t amend the US Constitution) is not unusual. Plus the article I linked to had quotes from Supreme Court decisions that quite clearly said treaties do not supersede the Constitution. I dare say my point of view is well supported, even if there’s a remote chance that what you propose is true, that Hamilton and others conspired (that’s why I called it a conspiracy theory) to subvert the amendment process.
In regards to the fact that treaties were listed as justification for the Endangered Species Act, that could simply mean that’s why the law was written. In other words, the treaties prompted the law to be written, but that doesn’t mean the law was automatically constitutional. All law would still need to pass constitutional muster, but that’s what we’re disagreeing about.
It’s not like the government doesn’t pass all sorts of extra-constitutional laws all the time. It does! In most cases, they don’t even bother to claim what part of the Constitution justifies a given law. The Democrats in particular think they can pass pretty much whatever they want. They certainly don’t need a treaty to justify trampling the US Constitution.
Like I wrote, we can agree to disagree. I mean you no disrespect. I just disagree with your opinion that treaties are higher than the Constitution. If what you say is true, then government could pass a treaty banning any or all of the provision of the Bill of Rights. It could theoretically pass a treaty saying the president is elected by a simple vote of the Senate! Sorry, but that’s ridiculous.
Again, apparently his lying about it doesn't count for you.
Those kinds of thought processes are typical for conspiracy theorists. No insult intended, but you appear to assume the worst rather than accept the simpler, more likely explanation.
You ignore the evidence, saying that there is none, and then cover it with an insult offering that none is intended.
You are dishonest.
You also claim I’m delusional, but my opinion (that treaties don’t amend the US Constitution) is not unusual.
The metric for your delusion has nothing to do with that. It is this borderline idolatry conferred upon the Founders. Your brainwashing is therefore fully apparent.
The founders were men, just like any other men, with strengths, weaknesses, and mistaken loyalties (particularly to Freemasonry). They were inarguably well educated. Even so, Madison was had by this crew, and he even admitted as much later in life as he watched the steady progress of usurpation of power progress through the Congress.
In regards to the fact that treaties were listed as justification for the Endangered Species Act, that could simply mean that’s why the law was written.
Nonsense. You are inventing things, which is a sign of desperation. The section is entitled "Authority." Spin that.
In other words, the treaties prompted the law to be written, but that doesn’t mean the law was automatically constitutional.
Then it would have been "Rationale," or "Justification," and not "Authority." You see, it is you who has to avoid plain meaning here.
It’s not like the government doesn’t pass all sorts of extra-constitutional laws all the time. It does! In most cases, they don’t even bother to claim what part of the Constitution justifies a given law.
They went to the trouble of doing it on this one. That should tell you something. You are hand-waving it away with, 'they ignore it all the time.' In this extremely important, no, crucial case, they took the trouble to cite treaty "authority" because they knew damned well that no treaty the United States has ever ratified has been thrown out on Constitutional grounds.
Yet the scope of powers those treaties invoke is so far beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution that they are laughable. That's evidence. You ignore it.
I just disagree with your opinion that treaties are higher than the Constitution. If what you say is true, then government could pass a treaty banning any or all of the provision of the Bill of Rights.
Then you need a basis for that 'disagreement' you have not cited. Nor have I seen a single example out of you in support of your argument. Just what the hell do you think the ESA has done to the "just compensation" requirements of the Fifth Amendment?
The ESA and all the other Nixonian environmental laws were passed amid the collapse of the Brettonwoods Agreement. The government had to sequester collateral or the lenders (especially de Gaulle) would not lend without additional collateral (the gold in Ft. Knox was already LONG over collateralized). The government promised the entire mineral estate of the United States as collateral. The ESA is means to sequester that estate. Since that time, there has not been one major hard rock mining operation authorized in the American West. But you'll ignore that too, seeing as you can't get past the plain meaning of the need for a section citing treaties as "Authority."
The goal of my work is to fracture that Federal estate with a host of products and new land uses, effectively privatizing it beyond their greedy fingers.
It could theoretically pass a treaty saying the president is elected by a simple vote of the Senate! Sorry, but that’s ridiculous.
That is a moronic argument. There is a huge difference between the exercise of a usurpation of power not enumerated or described in the Constitution and the modification of a statutory procedure that is codified therein.