In reply to:

And the whole basis of the guy's rant was that this was unconstitutional

Please keep in mind that the author of the article is a member of the Constitution Party of Texas -- an organization with which I believe you would agree on many issues. Here's a short list:
In reply to:

WHEREAS, the legitimate function of government is to protect the life, the liberty and the property of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, the 9th and 10th Articles of the Bill of Rights specifically forbid all functions of the Federal Government except those specifically delegated to it; and

WHEREAS, the entire system of government welfare is a communist idea predicated upon the concept of taking from the rich and giving to the poor; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of Texas does not empower the State Government to take money from one group to benefit another, and

WHEREAS, both major political parties are socialistic in nature, differing only in how to "reform" the welfare system...

Also, his use of the term "un-Constitutional" is special. Notice the capitalization. If we wanted to say that the war in Iraq was illegal according to the Constitution, he would have simply said the war was "unconstitutional". But he didn't. You can't ignore the obvious distinction he is trying to make. This is what he means when he says the war is un-Constitutional:
In reply to:

We say "No!" to the so-called New World Order; and "Yes!" to the national sovereignty of the United States of America.

The Constitution Party opposes any alliance or participation in any treaty or agreement which compromises our independence as a nation, or which subverts our Constitution by improperly committing us to participation in foreign conflicts or intervention in foreign wars.

We join with other American patriots to oppose the surrender of American liberty and autonomy to any form of world government or any organization which works toward that end.

We call upon the president and Congress to terminate the membership of the United States in the United Nations and its subsidiary and affiliated organizations.

All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution because the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.

No treaties (even if signed by the president or one of his agents on behalf of the United States) lacking the Constitutionally required two-thirds concurrence of the Senate may be implemented, in whole or part, by Congressional act, Executive Order, or bureaucratic regulation(s).

The Framers assumed, as a matter of course, that treaties would be subordinate. In fact, the stated reason for the particular wording of the Constitution concerning treaties was to make sure pre-existing treaties, including post-Revolutionary peace treaties concluded after the Articles of Confederation, would remain valid.

Thomas Jefferson, addressing the question directly, had this to say: "...surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."



Last edited by pmbuko; 09/30/04 11:35 PM.