Supreme Court: Does the UN trump the US Constitution?

[Brian4Liberty]

Amazing that a decision like this goes to the Supreme Court. The original prosecutors that used a UN law (treaty) should be disbarred. Of course that may not have been accidental at all. Just setting a precedence. Another power grab.

The Supreme Court can use a soap-opera case to stop federal overreach

By Ted Cruz, Published: November 4

In 2006, Carol Anne Bond of Lansdale, Pa., burned a woman with caustic chemicals as revenge after the woman became pregnant by Bond’s husband.

Ordinarily, Bond would have been prosecuted for assault, aggravated assault or harassment — in other words, for violating Pennsylvania criminal laws. Instead, federal prosecutors charged Bond with violating the federal legislation implementing the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons. This treaty outlaws the production, collection and use of chemical weapons, including poisonous gases and bacterial weapons, to prevent chemical warfare.

When the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument Tuesday in Bond v. United States, the fundamental issues will be U.S. sovereignty and the Constitution’s structural limits on federal power. The questions raised by this case go to the heart of our constitutional system: Does the federal government, through the treaty power, have authority to trump our system of federalism and separation of powers? Does the president’s power to make treaties and Congress’s power to implement treaties have unlimited reach?

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...351_story.html

Treaties Don't Trump the Constitution
By Congressman Steve Stockman

Can the President and Senate invest the federal government with new powers not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution simply by signing and ratifying a treaty? Can the treaty power be used to override the Tenth Amendment and render it a dead letter? Those issues will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 5, 2013, in the case of Bond v. United States.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...stitution.html

[tod evans]

Prosecutors....................................... ........List!

[ZENemy]

ANYTHING that we the people do not stop can trump the Constitution.

The constitution will not enforce itself, nor will those that are hindered by it.

We the people, with our speech first, and bullets second are the only thing that can TRUMP or ENFORCE the Constitution. Anything else is a usurpation and treason against the people.

[tommyrp12]

seems legit.......

attorn
at·torn
[uh-turn] Show IPA Law.

verb (used without object)
1.
to acknowledge the relation of a tenant to a new landlord.

verb (used with object)
2.
to turn over to another; transfer.

treason is their job.

[Czolgosz]

ANYTHING that we the people do not stop can trump the Constitution.
...

You said it ALL in one line, my friend.

[DamianTV]

The Law has nothing to do with what is Legal and Justice has nothing to do with what is Right.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If it is acceptable for the federal government to usurp authority of states and localities under a constitution, why is it wrong for an international organization to do the same with nations?

[ClydeCoulter]

The comments at the washingpost article by Ted Cruz are horrid for the most part. No understanding of the supremacy clause, except by very few there.

[juvanya]

What the hell? So Barack can violate treaties, but his subjects cant.

[mrsat_98]

What the hell? So Barack can violate treaties, but his subjects cant.

That's Right !