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".
If they take it, I am sure the majority just pay it lip service. If that is the case, but they took it, they will undergo judgement in a court they cannot escape. If they didn't, we, The people, will eventually hold them to account, and still they will end up in that inescapable Court for judgement.
More food for thought. Every single elected or appointed government servant is required to obey the Constitution. If they act outside of the limited powers granted, they are answerable to We, The people. We can call for a Grand Jury, we can Quo Warranto them, we can recall them, and, as a last resort, we can eliminate them. Government serves us, not the other way around.
In the Founders day, any act of treason was punishable by death. That was because individual rights and liberty were to be protected at all costs. Today, our rights and liberties are treated as trivial, and subject to government control. Another example of usurpation of power/authority.
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".
If they take it, I am sure the majority just pay it lip service. If that is the case, but they took it, they will undergo judgement in a court they cannot escape. If they didn't, we, The people, will eventually hold them to account, and still they will end up in that inescapable Court for judgement.
More food for thought. Every single elected or appointed government servant is required to obey the Constitution. If they act outside of the limited powers granted, they are answerable to We, The people. We can call for a Grand Jury, we can Quo Warranto them, we can recall them, and, as a last resort, we can eliminate them. Government serves us, not the other way around.
In the Founders day, any act of treason was punishable by death. That was because individual rights and liberty were to be protected at all costs. Today, our rights and liberties are treated as trivial, and subject to government control. Another example of usurpation of power/authority.