Our US Constitution guarantees our soverignty and citizen's rights. Without another constitutional amendment, when Bush in 2010 gives up our soveregnty to the North America Free Trade Union's SPP, Nasco giving Mexico 400,000 sq acres in Kansas City, and having our supreme court silenced by having a higher international court decide America's cases and all of this that goes with it;
and given the fact there is no part of the Constitution that says if one part of this contract is found to be null and void without an amemdment that the rest of the Constitution would still be valid;
Wouldn't that break the contract of the Constitution, of which all other laws are validated through, and be broken between the people and the government?
I say what Bush wants to do with Mexico, USA, and Canada is unconstitutional, and to do so would 1) break the contract of the constitution between the people and the government or 2) nullify the constitution because it's been replace.
What say you
2006-07-15
06:43:13
·
11 answers
·
asked by
yars232c
6
in
Immigration