Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)

2. I should clarify,

Reply to Bandit (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 4, 2014, 02:08 PM

Nov 2014

she said that whether or not the treaty is ratified, it trumps the Constitution, and another boneheaded statement from her was that she would have no power to stop the feds from coming into the county and pretty much doing what the wanted to do, and she would have no choice but to help them, which is patently false.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Just got done voting and it felt GREAT!!!!!! [View all] GGJohn Nov 2014 OP

Neither trumps the other, both are the "supreme law of the land" Bandit Nov 2014 #1

I should clarify, GGJohn Nov 2014 #2

This is in Article 6 of the constitution tnlurker Nov 2014 #3

Right, but she said it wouldn't matter if it was ratified or not, GGJohn Nov 2014 #4

I guess I was typing my reply tnlurker Nov 2014 #5