<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Treaty to Disarm all Americans Defeated. For Now</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/10/the-treaty-to-disarm-all-americans-defeated-for-now/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/10/the-treaty-to-disarm-all-americans-defeated-for-now/</link>
	<description>The Tenther Grapevine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 20:30:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dmellon</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/10/the-treaty-to-disarm-all-americans-defeated-for-now/#comment-17309</link>
		<dc:creator>dmellon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=13229#comment-17309</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t think it is correct to state that a treaty is supreme to the federal constitution or that it could amend it.  In the paragraph from Article VI that you copy the last reference to &quot;the constitution&quot; refers to the state constitutions not the federal constitution.  Presumably a treaty could be ratified that was unconstitutional but it would not have the power to amend or alter the constitution.  A few court decisions “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, 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, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think it is correct to state that a treaty is supreme to the federal constitution or that it could amend it.  In the paragraph from Article VI that you copy the last reference to &#8220;the constitution&#8221; refers to the state constitutions not the federal constitution.  Presumably a treaty could be ratified that was unconstitutional but it would not have the power to amend or alter the constitution.  A few court decisions “The treaty is &#8230; 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, 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, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
