Analysis of the Upcoming Copenhagen Treaty

Sounds frightening, and far be it from me to approve of anything Barak Hussein Obama does, but the US Constitution states quite clearly that any treaty the president signs must first get a two thirds approval from the US Senate.

Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2 reads .....

" He (POTUS) shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate , to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"

So I don't think Barry can just sign away our sovereignty.

There is also another small stumbling block to that ...


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Let the flames begin....
Thankfully, Lord Monckton is not an expert on the US Constitution.

The US Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme authority in the US,
and no treaty or agreement takes precedence over it. So his statement:
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says
that it takes precedence over your Constitution
is pure bollocks ...

From Article VI:
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.
Boldness is mine for emphasis - which means that the Constitution, the Laws of the
United States derived from the Constitution, and any treaties made under the authority
of the U.S. shall be the supreme Law of the Land, unless the Constitution and the
laws derived from it state otherwise.

Last edited: