NationStates Jolt Archive

For all you informed Americans out there. How many of you think that our Judicial branch has stepped over the line way to many times? I mean since the early 70's they have literally been making up laws and legistlating from the bench. This surely isn't what they were designed to do. Any suggestions on changing this. I have heard different ways from others. I would like to hear some suggestions from our group. Yet maybe you think it is just fine. Have your say:

If this is about Terry Schiavo, go someplace else. Please.

judges have always made law. it comes with the territory.

The whole purpose of the Judicial branch is to interepret and enforce laws and the constitution. They are appointed, not elected, and don't have to worry about being replaced, since they have lifelong terms, so they have little or no political agenda. Believe it or not, they're doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

If this is about Terry Schiavo, go someplace else. Please.


This is about the whole spectrum. So please excuse yourself if you don't want to add anything to this.

judges have always made law. it comes with the territory.


No they haven't in the US. Since the 70's is about when they started "making" not interpeting the laws of the land.

I believe the congress and the president have over stepped their bounds, seems to me the judges are just doing their job.

Please provide several examples of how you believe the Judicial Branch - I presume you're speaking about the Supreme Court more than any other Court - has "legislated from the bench." I can answer you properly then.

No they haven't in the US. Since the 70's is about when they started "making" not interpeting the laws of the land.

I am forced to disagree. The Judicial branch of the United States government has been doing that from nearly the begining. My guess is that you've just disagreed politically with the things that have been "legislated from the bench" and are choosing to ignore the things you DO agree with.

I am forced to disagree. The Judicial branch of the United States government has been doing that from nearly the begining. My guess is that you've just disagreed politically with the things that have been "legislated from the bench" and are choosing to ignore the things you DO agree with.


This is not true at all. There has not been a time in American history where so many from the bench rulings have been so out of line. I thought it was just the 9th circuit out of San Francisco that was the major problem. Now it is a nationwide issue. Judicial branch cannot ignore the constitution, the President and the legislative branch of the US. I think we are going to see power stripped away from the Judicial branch. I am all for it.

I believe the congress and the president have over stepped their bounds, seems to me the judges are just doing their job.


Remember the congress can make laws. They can also strip the judicial branch of certain powers. The three branches are suppose to balance themselves out.

The Supreme Court is still just interpreting the Constitution. They are doing the job they were appointed to do. These are people who are well learned in the Consititution, and I fear that if they do have their power stripped, it will certainly not benifit the freedom of our society.

No they haven't in the US. Since the 70's is about when they started "making" not interpeting the laws of the land.

then what are common law and case law?

Please provide several examples of how you believe the Judicial Branch - I presume you're speaking about the Supreme Court more than any other Court - has "legislated from the bench." I can answer you properly then.


Not a problem. Here is a good website that shows several what I would consider legislating from the bench. It's a somewhat long read.


http://thedailypolemic.blogs.com/rand/legislating_from_the_bench/

Remember the congress can make laws. They can also strip the judicial branch of certain powers. The three branches are suppose to balance themselves out.

Granted, but when you're brain damaged to the point that you might as well be dead, do you want our government telling husband & wife what to do? I mean that is what this thread is about right? In 5 years of marriage trust me they discussed it. I discussed it with my boyfriend before we were ever married. To believe he didn't know her wishes is stupid at best.

Simple. Enlist some friendly neighbors.

Judges interpret the Constitution. Treaties are separate from, but equal to the Constitution in strength of law. The Supreme Court cannot rule on treaties, only on the Constitution.

Therefore, if we want something done, we throw down a simple treaty and be done with it.

Edit: That's Missouri vs. Holland, btw.

Granted, but when you're brain damaged to the point that you might as well be dead, do you want our government telling husband & wife what to do? I mean that is what this thread is about right? In 5 years of marriage trust me they discussed it. I discussed it with my boyfriend before we were ever married. To believe he didn't know her wishes is stupid at best.

Well this particular case has been well hashed on these boards. What I am referring to is the whole group. This case is one of many.

Simple. Enlist some friendly neighbors.

Judges interpret the Constitution. Treaties are separate from, but equal to the Constitution in strength of law. The Supreme Court cannot rule on treaties, only on the Constitution.

Therefore, if we want something done, we throw down a simple treaty and be done with it.

and when there is the inevitable dispute over what some part of the treaty means, what then?

For all you informed Americans out there. How many of you think that our Judicial branch has stepped over the line way to many times? I mean since the early 70's they have literally been making up laws and legistlating from the bench. This surely isn't what they were designed to do. Any suggestions on changing this. I have heard different ways from others. I would like to hear some suggestions from our group. Yet maybe you think it is just fine. Have your say:
I know of only three ways ( short of revolution ) to do this:

1. Change the constitution to limit the judiciary to a more strict-constructionist Constitutional role. Unlikely because you have to move heaven and earth to change the Constitution.

2. Write into each law a clause which says that the law is to be interpreted only along strict-constructionist lines. Virtually impossible becuase of the time involved, plus that in and of itself may be unconstitutional.

3. Appoint only strict-constructionist judges. Something most democrats think is heresy and which most republicans already try to do.

and when there is the inevitable dispute over what some part of the treaty means, what then?

The Judiciary has no right to govern the way the Executive deals with foreign allies, under any circumstance.

I know of only three ways ( short of revolution ) to do this:

1. Change the constitution to limit the judiciary to a more strict-constructionist Constitutional role. Unlikely because you have to move heaven and earth to change the Constitution.

2. Write into each law a clause which says that the law is to be interpreted only along strict-constructionist lines. Virtually impossible becuase of the time involved, plus that in and of itself may be unconstitutional.

3. Appoint only strict-constructionist judges. Something most democrats think is heresy and which most republicans already try to do.

The United States of America is a nation founded upon laws! We are a Republic, thus the ruling from the bench is the last and final say, as the USA was founded on and as it should be!

The United States of America is a nation founded upon laws! We are a Republic, thus the ruling from the bench is the last and final say, as the USA was founded on and as it should be!


See this is where alot of people get it wrong. 3 branches-equal. Not one over the other two. The congress can and I am sure will now change what the Judiciary can do.

The United States of America is a nation founded upon laws! We are a Republic, thus the ruling from the bench is the last and final say, as the USA was founded on and as it should be!
Yes, but I for one am very grateful that the judiciary must wait for a law to be challenged before they can rule on it, whether they are strict-constructionist or liberal-interpretationist. :)

See this is where alot of people get it wrong. 3 branches-equal. Not one over the other two. The congress can and I am sure will now change what the Judiciary can do.
Only to a very limited degree.

I know of only three ways ( short of revolution ) to do this:
2. Write into each law a clause which says that the law is to be interpreted only along strict-constructionist lines. Virtually impossible becuase of the time involved, plus that in and of itself may be unconstitutional.

3. Appoint only strict-constructionist judges. Something most democrats think is heresy and which most republicans already try to do.

The clause would be ignored because, like you said, it would be viewed as unconstitutional. The appointing judges thing doesn't work either, that's been tried (The "Burger" Court)

The judicial branch is the least corrupted and perverted part of our whole government.

When they're done in, we're done for.

Only to a very limited degree.


Yes I agree, but if anything positive comes out of recent problems. I think some safeguards will be re-introduced and added in to protect the American public from this kind of behavior.

It seems like the judicial branch is the last bastion of reason in our government.

Partisan hackery and outright corruptions is the mode of everything else.

The judiciary is the last rational voice with any power in the country.

It seems like the judicial branch is the last bastion of reason in our government.

Partisan hackery and outright corruptions is the mode of everything else.

The judiciary is the last rational voice with any power in the country.

I have a feeling you wouldn't say that about U.S. vs. Morrison, or City of Boerne vs. Flores... :rolleyes:

I have a feeling you wouldn't say that about U.S. vs. Morrison, or City of Boerne vs. Flores... :rolleyes:

On the whole, compared to say... the house of representatives or the senate or the executive... :rolleyes:

On the whole, compared to say... the house of representatives or the senate or the executive... :rolleyes:

On the whole? What, since Marbury? The Rehnquist Court? I'm lost here.. the Rehnquist Court has been a rightist coup. The existence of another FDR, JFK, or, in some respects, Jimmy Carter is literally impossible now, without an entirely flushed set of justices.

Considering the expected retirements of the Supreme Court during the next few years, any "bastion of reason" that was there before, wouldn't be there then [after new appointments].

Not a problem. Here is a good website that shows several what I would consider legislating from the bench. It's a somewhat long read.


http://thedailypolemic.blogs.com/rand/legislating_from_the_bench/While that site is named "legislating from the bench," only the latest post pertains to the supposed over-extension of the Court's Constitutional powers. Most of it is anti-Left/pro-Bush writing, with headlines such as "Has a Jimmy Carter-appointed Federal Judge just put National Security at risk in favor of the "rights" of suspected foreign terrorists at Gitmo?" and "Liberal Democrats happy to buy time in Republican challenge of voter fraud in Governor's race".

Do you have a non-hypocrtical source that actually lists the cases that you're concerned with?

This is not true at all. There has not been a time in American history where so many from the bench rulings have been so out of line. I thought it was just the 9th circuit out of San Francisco that was the major problem. Now it is a nationwide issue. Judicial branch cannot ignore the constitution, the President and the legislative branch of the US. I think we are going to see power stripped away from the Judicial branch. I am all for it.
An obvious allusion to a CURRENT issue. Not something anyone here needs to truly be "informed" about. Sounds like rabblerousing. Especially following your thread topicline. Sounds also like there isn't much substance to it, or any real following so far ... for example (my apologies to whose names i don't print):

The whole purpose of the Judicial branch is to interepret and enforce laws and the constitution. They are appointed, not elected, and don't have to worry about being replaced, since they have lifelong terms, so they have little or no political agenda. Believe it or not, they're doing exactly what they are supposed to do.
-
I believe the congress and the president have over stepped their bounds, seems to me the judges are just doing their job.
-
Please provide several examples of how you believe the Judicial Branch - I presume you're speaking about the Supreme Court more than any other Court - has "legislated from the bench." I can answer you properly then.
-
The Supreme Court is still just interpreting the Constitution. They are doing the job they were appointed to do. These are people who are well learned in the Consititution, and I fear that if they do have their power stripped, it will certainly not benifit the freedom of our society.
So is there any merit to this thread other than what you don't like about society responding to Bush and his f*ckhead agenda (and cabinet)?
BTW, Bush PUBLICLY stated that the gay marriage issue really wasn't that big a deal to him. Look it up. (San Francisco?)
As far as the integrity of the judicial branch ignoring the constitution, WTF? Bush and their followers are very specifically amending the constitution at whatever juncture they find it inconvenient. I wouldn't recommend you use that angle here.
Maybe you're being honest with decisions being "out of line". Yeah, out of lock-step. With what appears to be a weaning spirit, i still declare a big f*ck all y'all who want to make this country EVEN WORSE than it already is with your at best poorly-conceived notions of national integrity. Sit back and watch your FOX network and boycott your volcano movies and COMPLETELY IGNORE the lack of integrity of the right-wing agenda and its proponents and scream hellfire almighty about the Armageddon the fundamentalists are flaming on about and be the biggest part of the detriment of what is more and more a fleeting but beautiful notion.

Here ya go about Schiavo:

As posted on FOX "news" ....
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html
"The Texas statute that Bush signed authorized the ending of the life, even over the parents' protest. And what he's doing here is saying, 'The parents are protesting. You shouldn't stop [treatment],'" John Paris, a medical ethicist at Boston College, told Newsday.

But some experts said the two cases are quite different.

As is true of other state laws, Texas' Advance Directives Act of 1999 (search) privileges the input of the patient's spouse over that of adult children, followed by the parents if there is no written directive.

But ultimately, the decision to extend treatment is made by the doctors and hospital.

"I think her rights were violated," Mario Caballero (search), Wanda Hudson's attorney, told FOX News. "These are decisions that the mother ought to make, and what really happened here is not an ethical issue."

John Robertson, professor of bioethics at the University of Texas School of Law (search), said the Schiavo battle would have played out similarly had it taken place in Texas.
While Robertson conceded it was probably unfair to label Bush a hypocrite over the Advance Directives Act, the professor added that other contradictions had surfaced this week.

Referring to Bush's backing of an unprecedented House maneuver to prolong Schiavo's life on Monday, he said: "In 1999, as governor, he had more faith in our state court processes than he appeared last week to have in the Schiavo case."
-
For a little more elucidation, and some perspective on where this thread might be aimed ....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...ttr=HOME_682992


Yeah, i'll shut up now so the more "informed" americans can have their say too.

Glad your not the majority there straughn.

The judicial branch is the least corrupted and perverted part of our whole government.

When they're done in, we're done for.
*gets the trumpet ready for "Taps"*
Too true.
Thanks again for John Ashcroft.
[sarcasm]

The Judiciary has no right to govern the way the Executive deals with foreign allies, under any circumstance.

the treaty would become the law of the land, but the courts would get to hear any cases arising from it. no legal document could ever possibly cover all possible disputes that could arise from it. so you'd have to develop a body of case law to establish precedent about whether actions x,y, and z violate said treaty or not. and you are back to courts 'legislating from the bench' - it's unavoidable.

Glad your not the majority there straughn.
I don't have the current republican ego to supplement that kind of thinking, like a complete misunderstanding of what a "mandate" is, for example.
I'm glad i'm not either. Everyone should take their own personal stand. While they can.

Yeah, i'll shut up now so the more "informed" americans can have their say too.

Such a fan of the Court. I'm sure you wer thrilled when the Court sided with Bush in the Moussoui case a few days back, and when it overturned the Brady Handgun Act and the Violence Against Women Act, under Rehnquist, yes? :)

"
Everyone should take their own personal stand. While they can.


You know what. Agree with this 100%. You have a right to your say. Leave it up to others to agree or disagree.

the treaty would become the law of the land, but the courts would get to hear any cases arising from it. no legal document could ever possibly cover all possible disputes that could arise from it. so you'd have to develop a body of case law to establish precedent about whether actions x,y, and z violate said treaty or not. and you are back to courts 'legislating from the bench' - it's unavoidable.

Yes, treaty power would apply to individual acts and policies that couldn't be contested by the Court for lack of standing and time constraints. Laws voided or prohibitions created could be challenged, though, by the Court. This is still a much more difficult shot for the Court to block, as precedent shows, and as the current Court would seem to indicate..

Please provide several examples of how you believe the Judicial Branch - I presume you're speaking about the Supreme Court more than any other Court - has "legislated from the bench." I can answer you properly then.
The recent case on the death penalty was a good indicator. The US's law comes from the constitution and the people in the US ONLY. The laws of surrounding countries should be completely irrelevant to any case that the supreme court hears unless it involves a diplomat, which it wouldn't since diplomats have immunity.

You know what. Agree with this 100%. You have a right to your say. Leave it up to others to agree or disagree.
100% except for that inconvenient part about your apparent intent with this thread .... quote, i dunno, maybe ...
"Judicial Juggernaut, time to crush it."
How is that an individual choice to do what you propose, how you propose it?
Rallyin' round the flagpole. So try again, maybe, your post SEEMS a tad hypocritical.
To agree or disagree would require specific subject matter, else you're providing only shadow substance and betraying the nature of context. So how about qualifying a bit more?

100% except for that inconvenient part about your apparent intent with this thread .... quote, i dunno, maybe ...
"Judicial Juggernaut, time to crush it."
How is that an individual choice to do what you propose, how you propose it?
Rallyin' round the flagpole. So try again, maybe, your post SEEMS a tad hypocritical.
To agree or disagree would require specific subject matter, else you're providing only shadow substance and betraying the nature of context. So how about qualifying a bit more?


I did, check the link I posted earlier in the main post here. This will spell out several examples of Judicial overstepping. Your reading into what you think this is way to much.

Such a fan of the Court. I'm sure you wer thrilled when the Court sided with Bush in the Moussoui case a few days back, and when it overturned the Brady Handgun Act and the Violence Against Women Act, under Rehnquist, yes? :)
You assume too much, you cad. *wink*
You actually know little at all about me, but hey, if you want to cite those cases for your own purposes, nothin' 'cept mods z'gonna stop ya. Or a conscience. ;)
To clarify a little, i'm not for violence against women. I'm not for infringements on the 2nd amendment. I'm not for anyone who actually has any specific tie to murdering any large group of people.
And i'm not so stupid as to believe that the name of an "Act" is actually the INTENT of said "Act" ... case in point, Clear Skies Act.
N'joy.

You assume too much, you cad. *wink*
You actually know little at all about me, but hey, if you want to cite those cases for your own purposes, nothin' 'cept mods z'gonna stop ya. Or a conscience. ;)
To clarify a little, i'm not for violence against women. I'm not for infringements on the 2nd amendment. I'm not for anyone who actually has any specific tie to murdering any large group of people.
And i'm not so stupid as to believe that the name of an "Act" is actually the INTENT of said "Act" ... case in point, Clear Skies Act.
N'joy.

Some want to throw the favored baby out with the bathwater; others conveniently ignore the trend of the Court in praising some aberration. This thread's rife with both. I'm not accusing anyone of being for/against anything, only of taking either flawed view of the Court.

I did, check the link I posted earlier in the main post here. This will spell out several examples of Judicial overstepping. Your reading into what you think this is way to much.
I'm not reading too much into your topic line. It's what you posted. Some of your supplement through this thread tends to say something as well. What am i supposed to read into that?
M'kay, it's a game here, fair enough ... how are you on nun-beating? There needs to be a good court precedent for it, dammit!
I looked at the thread you provided. Starts off with Drudge, okay good start there. Certainly no political bias on this blog. Certainly none from the quotes and overarching conclusions while not actually qualifying subject matter. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Like i'd said. And, that wasn't in the main post.
Actually, Trammwerk made much more succint a point then myself. I digress.

Some want to throw the favored baby out with the bathwater; others conveniently ignore the trend of the Court in praising some aberration. This thread's rife with both. I'm not accusing anyone of being for/against anything, only of taking either flawed view of the Court.
To be fair, a good part of my time isn't taken up reviewing everything going on in the courts. I don't think i have any favor of any specific judge and i have been inclined to disagree. I however will not treat the judicial system as a "juggernaut" that needs to be crushed and have stated so. Others have put it better than i have already.
I stated for/against situations as to be amicable to context. No one has to care about it, but on this thread someone might post as you had and give the (inference) that my thinking might be easily politicized and polarized.

I stated for/against situations as to be amicable to context. No one has to care about it, but on this thread someone might post as you had and give the (inference) that my thinking might be easily politicized and polarized.

My intentions were just the opposite. I was trying to provide some examples of the Court "legislating from the bench" that you might've been inclined to see as such. We have a right-wing Court in place, along with conservatives biting the hand that feeds them whenever it fails to go their way, and liberals who extoll its merits when it does, forgetting basic trends and recent history. I don't wish to 'crush' the Judiciary in any sense, only to try and provide some context to the way the Court operates in political terms.

The whole purpose of the Judicial branch is to interepret and enforce laws and the constitution. They are appointed, not elected, and don't have to worry about being replaced, since they have lifelong terms, so they have little or no political agenda. Believe it or not, they're doing exactly what they are supposed to do.


HA!

If there is no political agenda or bias, then why do the Dems keep shooting down Bush's conservative nominees?

No judge is neutral. Everyone has a certain bias. You stated one of the purposes of the Jud. branch was to "interpret" laws. Is it hard to see that Conservatives and Liberals interpret most laws differently?

The recent case on the death penalty was a good indicator. The US's law comes from the constitution and the people in the US ONLY. The laws of surrounding countries should be completely irrelevant to any case that the supreme court hears unless it involves a diplomat, which it wouldn't since diplomats have immunity.Do you have a link for that case?

By the way, you might be interested to know that, if I understand you right, the Supreme Court used rulings in the European Court of Human Rights and various other international organizations in Lawrence v. Texas to overturn all anti-sodomy laws in the U.S. [though they probably should have just used Romer v. Evans...]

HA!

If there is no political agenda or bias, then why do the Dems keep shooting down Bush's conservative nominees?

No judge is neutral. Everyone has a certain bias. You stated one of the purposes of the Jud. branch was to "interpret" laws. Is it hard to see that Conservatives and Liberals interpret most laws differently?Well, you're right; Judicial nominations are very politicized, though I should note that they SHOULD NOT BE.

However, I would also note that the Democrats only refused to put 10 of Bush's nominees on the Bench; roughly 5% of his nominations, in other words. They were the most ideologically extreme. Ideally, in a democratic, two-party system, the two extremes meet in the middle on their judicial nominations and we get relatively moderate judges. Bush and the Republicans seem to think this is a bad idea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59877-2004Dec12.html), though.

My intentions were just the opposite. I was trying to provide some examples of the Court "legislating from the bench" that you might've been inclined to see as such. We have a right-wing Court in place, along with conservatives biting the hand that feeds them whenever it fails to go their way, and liberals who extoll its merits when it does, forgetting basic trends and recent history. I don't wish to 'crush' the Judiciary in any sense, only to try and provide some context to the way the Court operates in political terms.
Fair 'nuff, i respect that. I think you've done more elucidating in this vein than a few others here ....

Simple. Enlist some friendly neighbors.

Judges interpret the Constitution. Treaties are separate from, but equal to the Constitution in strength of law. The Supreme Court cannot rule on treaties, only on the Constitution.

Therefore, if we want something done, we throw down a simple treaty and be done with it.

Edit: That's Missouri vs. Holland, btw.

I'm pretty sure that Treaties have to be enacted by the Government.

Besides...

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution".

The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".

HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

The Judiciary has no right to govern the way the Executive deals with foreign allies, under any circumstance.

Wrong...

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

I'm pretty sure that Treaties have to be enacted by the Government.

Besides...

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution".

The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".

HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

I find myself agreeing with Urantia II. I made need to see my therapist about this. :D ;)

Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says in part:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

Article IV, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

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.

Ratified treaties and acts of Congress are viewed as being on equal footing. When a treaty and legislation conflict, whichever is newer supersedes. (Which is the same as with statutes.) Treaties and acts of Congress are both subject to the Constitution.

A full, authoritative discussion may be found here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html#t335). To make clear that judiciary interprets treaties and that they are subject to the Constitution, however, I'll supply the following from that site.

''The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.'' Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=57&invol=635), 656 (1853). ''It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.'' The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. ( 78 U.S.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=133&invol=258) (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=169&invol=649) (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/265/332.html ) (1924).

Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1, 16-17 (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/354/1.html ) (1957) (plurality opinion):
''There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in 'pursuance' of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition--to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.''

I find myself agreeing with Urantia II. I made need to see my therapist about this. :D ;)

And now you are going to subject your Therapist to me...

You are a cruel, cruel person. :p

But hey! That's how he earns that money he is taking from you, so go ahead, let him have it!

;)

But let's not have any more of this agreeing BULL, it doesn't help me with my debating skills at ALL!

:D

Regards,
Gaar