You will have to offer example(s) of the Treaty, and what is within the Treaty. Please elaborate.
With having taking these oaths, any president or member of the senate who acts outside of the oaths Constitutional confines is acting outside of the supreme law of the land which means any laws, treaties, or agreements so made are null and void.. i.e. dead on arrival.
No, the Law is not "dead on arrival." If the Law(s) Constitutionality is in question then SCOTUS takes it up, and makes a Finding.
You are assuming, or asserting that making a Treaty with another State is unConstitutional. The Treaty might be, but until SCOTUS finds the Law to be unConstitutional, it is in application Constitutional.
No. You assert that such Law(s), whatever they might be, are unConstitution because you may not agree with them.Now we all know that presidents and members of both houses of congress have made all manner of illegal laws and such pretty much since the creation of this nation. However, something as fundamentally important to the survival of our liberty as virtually disbanding the Second Amendment would not only be illegal, but a clear act of treason. No such treaty would carry any weight even if it did make it through the senate and the president's signature. Illegal laws do not carry the obligation of obedience.
If Congress were to move to remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution, they can. The Constitution provides for such a thing. So no, it is not a 'clear act of treason'.
unConstitutional Laws only carry the obligation of obedience if you deem them to. Whether the Federal Government agrees with you or not is another issue -one which you might be required to pay a price for if you are wrong.
You see, the Government (made up of individuals who basically become an extension of the Entity) engages in an illegal act, well, there is little recourse. You engage in an act that is deemed illegal by the Government, there is recourse.
This thread is going to end badly.Thoughts?