Scary indeed, although I do believe that Lord Monkton overstates the power of a treaty to supersede our Constitution. Ratified treaties are the law of the land but only when make under the authority of the United States Government. Any treaty that contradicts our Constitution could not be made under that authority and would be an act of usurpation and therefore not binding.
It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule something like this. They may well uphold it, which would leave us with one option. Throw out the current Government and elect a new one which would annul the usurpation.
Needless to say, my view is that any such agreement made by the President would be an act of treason. Dittos for the Senators who would vote to ratify.
God help us that we have such a man as our President. -- Steve-bob
1 comment:
Scary indeed, although I do believe that Lord Monkton overstates the power of a treaty to supersede our Constitution. Ratified treaties are the law of the land but only when make under the authority of the United States Government. Any treaty that contradicts our Constitution could not be made under that authority and would be an act of usurpation and therefore not binding.
It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule something like this. They may well uphold it, which would leave us with one option. Throw out the current Government and elect a new one which would annul the usurpation.
Needless to say, my view is that any such agreement made by the President would be an act of treason. Dittos for the Senators who would vote to ratify.
God help us that we have such a man as our President.
-- Steve-bob
Post a Comment