Government doesn't have the legitimate authority to make a treaty that is in opposition to the constitution. If they do it, it is stolen power, or usurped power. It doesn't matter how long ago it was put in place, either. All laws (or Treaties) passed that are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.
You might want to learn more about legitimate power, the constitution, and the meaning of usurped.
The short answer tends to be the quixotic view,but nevertheless is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution, especially the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution’s other specific exceptions to federal authority. The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution.” Of course, this is under the Constitution as originally understood. How well does a Kamal Harris or a Imran Omar know this? Then you have all the 'evil-doers'. How well do you expect them to abide by this?
But the full answer is more complicated. This is because the Founding-Era evidence does suggest that the Constitution enables the federal government to acquire significant—although not unlimited—additional power by entering into treaties.
This is what NATO is. Also, remember the Trans-Pacific Trade Act (the one that would have really f-ed up our constitutional rights, but Trump dismantled it before it was signed into law?
Of course, evil politicians will try and don't care one iota about our rights as an American, so we need to watch our backs.
I have been studying the Constitution, the principles upon which our Republic was established, and the intentions the Founding Fathers had in regards to the Republic they established since I realized in the Gulf War my President had lied to us about our reasons for going to war. I questioned my oath, and what it was I had pledged myself to defending. I decided I would educate myself to know exactly what I was defending. 32 years later, one thing is 100% clear to me. They never intended the Federal Government to have any increase of power than the Constitution limited it to possessing. Not even by treaty.
Quite right and absolutely agree with you. Here's more. Could it be that there is very wide practice of the oath of office is not being taken by public officials? There seems to be a widespread issue with this. Secondly, there's all those take the oath of office view it like Bush Jr. said about the constitution....."It's just a piece of paper".
What do think NATO is? You might reread the part in the Constitution about contracts and treaties. They're valid.
Government doesn't have the legitimate authority to make a treaty that is in opposition to the constitution. If they do it, it is stolen power, or usurped power. It doesn't matter how long ago it was put in place, either. All laws (or Treaties) passed that are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.
You might want to learn more about legitimate power, the constitution, and the meaning of usurped.
The short answer tends to be the quixotic view,but nevertheless is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution, especially the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution’s other specific exceptions to federal authority. The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution.” Of course, this is under the Constitution as originally understood. How well does a Kamal Harris or a Imran Omar know this? Then you have all the 'evil-doers'. How well do you expect them to abide by this?
But the full answer is more complicated. This is because the Founding-Era evidence does suggest that the Constitution enables the federal government to acquire significant—although not unlimited—additional power by entering into treaties.
This is what NATO is. Also, remember the Trans-Pacific Trade Act (the one that would have really f-ed up our constitutional rights, but Trump dismantled it before it was signed into law?
Of course, evil politicians will try and don't care one iota about our rights as an American, so we need to watch our backs.
I have been studying the Constitution, the principles upon which our Republic was established, and the intentions the Founding Fathers had in regards to the Republic they established since I realized in the Gulf War my President had lied to us about our reasons for going to war. I questioned my oath, and what it was I had pledged myself to defending. I decided I would educate myself to know exactly what I was defending. 32 years later, one thing is 100% clear to me. They never intended the Federal Government to have any increase of power than the Constitution limited it to possessing. Not even by treaty.
Quite right and absolutely agree with you. Here's more. Could it be that there is very wide practice of the oath of office is not being taken by public officials? There seems to be a widespread issue with this. Secondly, there's all those take the oath of office view it like Bush Jr. said about the constitution....."It's just a piece of paper".