Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (132)	7/16/2005 8:17:00 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 3029

That's why we need to keep the UN out of our Bill of Rights. The UN would like nothing better than to do away with the Second Amendment.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (132)	7/16/2005 9:03:05 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 3029

I said: "International treaties are not part of federal laws. Depending on the way the treaty is written may be subordinate to or take precedence over US law, even the Constitution." You replied: "Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." That is the actual text in the Constitution. There has been speculation as to just what that means. Based on the verbiage you posted from the Constitution, I do not see my statement to be in error. We can probably agree that it is preferable to have our laws take precedence over international laws. In this respect PResident Bush has done a much better job than Clinton did.