I fear that the progressives will continue to use the treaty authority in the constitution to “amend” the constitution with only 2/3 senate approval, e.g. using the UN to “regulate” small arms, thus eliminating the 2nd amendment.
Can anyone help provide an argument where the constitution prohibits this way of “amending” the constitution?
I haven’t made the UN a point of study, but isn’t there a part of the UN “charter” (or whatever it’s called) that explicitly states that all UN directives are still subjective to and do not supersede/repeal laws/constitutions of the member-states?
The Supreme Court seemed to say in _Missouri v. Holland_ that treaties took priority over the Constitution. The Court has recently seemed to go the opposite direction, however, in _Reid v. Covert_ (1957).
.
