The Constitution of the United States is an amazing document. It establishes the three branches of the U.S. government with limitations on each and grants authority to each branch to act within those limitations. It is the supreme law of the land and can only be changed by an amendment ratified by the States. This is what I was taught in school: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the amendments.

It is not strictly true.

The President, in accordance with Article II, Section 2, Paragraph  2: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur;"

We all know that the President can negotiate a treaty, and that it has to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. That doesn't sound too bad. YET!

And according to Article VI, Paragraph 2: 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 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. 

Whoa, what's this? ANY treaty, once ratified and signed by the President, effectively becomes a part of the Constitution! Treaties only have to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, but amendments to the Constitution have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States! It's easier to change the Constitution by treaty than by amendment.

Like the Law of the Sea, for example. That treaty has been described as the biggest international undertaking in all of history. It creates a massive bureaucracy under the auspices of the United Nations and controlled by them. The "one state, one vote" power structure of the United Nations theoretically allows states with just eight percent of the world's population to pass a resolution by two-thirds vote.

I don't like it!
 
Now, when the Senate tries to "ram" something like the Law of the Sea treaty (or the Comprehensive Immigration SCAMNESTY bill!) through without debate by "unanimous consent", something smells fishy. Why don't they want to debate it publicly, allowing the citizens of the U.S. to learn what the treaty obligates us to and/or what outside authority the treaty might place over us? WHAT is the SENATE trying to hide from us?

I'm not saying that we should NOT approve of the Law of the Sea treaty. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing. I'm just saying that we should KNOW what it is we are getting into BEFORE we get into it. It's very difficult to get the general population to agree on making changes, especially significant changes, to the structure of the government. THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE! Such changes should not be possible with just a two-thirds vote of the Senate and the President's signature.

NAFTA is a DISASTER. It is the "baseline" from which is derived the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and the SPP is the base upon which the North American Community will be built. The North American Community will evolve into the North American Union. Those are the exact steps used to establish the European Union.

The Law of the Sea treaty could be the first step toward establishing the United Nations as a global government. No sane American wants that. We've seen how good the UN is at getting anything done (unless it's an under-the-table deal for highly placed officials). We've seen how good they are at enforcing their resolutions. Personally, I'd rather send the UN packing. I'm sure either New York City or the Federal government could make better use of the building(s) and facilities. But that's just me.