[UrUROFlS]

something to keep in mind, given obozo's penchant for imperial edict and his 'citizen of the world' shtick.


Some states and members of state legislatures have attempted to create legislation that would obviate or restrict the use of international law in their courts. Under the text and structure of the US Constitution and predominant trends in federal and state judicial decisions, this would not be constitutionally permissible.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, it is unavoidably mandated that, along with the constitution:

"[T]he Laws of the United States ... and all Treaties ... 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."

http://jurist.org/forum/2012/06/jord...ates-bound.php

[nanyaHgoc]

Deals with the Devil.

To bind is to be bound thus. And supranational responsibility always trumps domestic policy.

Where one is seen to exert influence beyond one's borders, one concedes a certain room for manoeuvre. And even should you find a way to circumvent it, the ensuing precedent allows for all signatory members to do likewise. Which is why it never happens.

One thing I don't get. If the Constitution specifically stipulates that it may be undermined by exterior influence, what was the point at all? I'm actually surprised by this 'Supremacy Clause'. It would not seem in keeping with the overall tone of liberty and protection it purports to extol. Because even if policies generated from within the sovereign border were unpopular, they could be implemented via collusion with foreign entities. So must 'We the people' include those from any corner of the globe?

In that light, the Constitution appears as something approaching an international referendum. And your Founding Fathers were Globalists. No offence intended.

At first glance, it's the mother of all loopholes.

[MormefWrarebe]

Deals with the Devil.

To bind is to be bound thus. And supranational responsibility always trumps domestic policy.

Where one is seen to exert influence beyond one's borders, one concedes a certain room for manoeuvre. And even should you find a way to circumvent it, the ensuing precedent allows for all signatory members to do likewise. Which is why it never happens.

One thing I don't get. If the Constitution specifically stipulates that it may be undermined by exterior influence, what was the point at all? I'm actually surprised by this 'Supremacy Clause'. It would not seem in keeping with the overall tone of liberty and protection it purports to extol. Because even if policies generated from within the sovereign border were unpopular, they could be implemented via collusion with foreign entities. So must 'We the people' include those from any corner of the globe?

In that light, the Constitution appears as something approaching an international referendum. And your Founding Fathers were Globalists. No offence intended.

At first glance, it's the mother of all loopholes.

Originally, there were the Articles of Confederation. 13 united sovereign nations, no President, no executive branch, no federal taxes.

I'd like very much to return to something similar.

It could be said that the Constitution itself was the first attack on our newfound liberty...

[RobertLS]

Originally, there were the Articles of Confederation. 13 united sovereign nations, no President, no executive branch, no federal taxes.

I'd like very much to return to something similar.

It could be said that the Constitution itself was the first attack on our newfound liberty...

Really? Christ, that's novel.

I'm unfamiliar with the document, but to hear you guys speak of it in here, it's the best thing since sliced bread. I've never once seen any of you give it shit.

[BegeMoT]

Patrick Henry
Virginia Ratification Debates on Federal Constitution
June 5, 1788

excerpt:

This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American?

Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs...

Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility—and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

The Senate, by making treaties, may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties that shall be the supreme law of the land; they may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them.

[Vegeinvalge]

Really? Christ, that's novel.

I'm unfamiliar with the document, but to hear you guys speak of it in here, it's the best thing since sliced bread. I've never once seen any of you give it shit.

Originally, the USA was something similar to the Eurozone.

Each State was as sovereign as France or Germany or the UK is today.

[Kausilwf]

Originally, the USA was something similar to the Eurozone.

Each State was as sovereign as France or Germany or the UK is today.

You don't think the US became more powerful for their conglomeration?

[sobre]

Patrick Henry
Virginia Ratification Debates on Federal Constitution
June 5, 1788

excerpt:

This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American?

Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs...

Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility—and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

The Senate, by making treaties, may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties that shall be the supreme law of the land; they may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them.

Good post.