>>>>>when signatories of a treaty agree as part of a treaty not to trade with non-signatories of a treaty, say over intellectual property rights.... the NPT is also such a treaty. Non-signatories are outcast - they cannot trade certain items with signatories.

I think we're talking about different things. The signatories are still the ones who are bound by the treaty. If the treaty so provides, then the signatories are supposed to refrain from trading the specified items with non-signatories. The non-signatories, however, can do whatever they want. If the treaty says that signatories can't sell widgets to Israel, then the signatories have a duty not to sell Israel the widgets. But that doesn't restrict Israel's freedom of action, as a non-signatory, at all.

What I believe Omooex was proposing, and what I objected to, was that Israel, a non-signatory, should be treated exactly as if it were a signatory, and punished the same way a signatory would be if it defaulted on its obligations, thereby obliterating the (very important) distinction between signatories and non-signatories under international law.

Eventually, most white Americans realized that it's wrong to hate blacks for being different.

Most Christian Americans figured out at some point that they shouldn't hate Jews for being different.

As illustrated by Daniel's moving story (and G-d bless that young man and his family), most heterosexual Americans are moving inexorably toward the conclusion that no one should hate homosexuals for being different.

Muslims. Arabs. We'll get there.

When you say "Article II powers," what powers are you referring to? If you see fit to answer my question, please quote specific language from Article II.

>>>>no other branch of government has any responsibility or authority for conducting our foreign affairs, other than to declare war (Congress), or ratify treaties (the Senate, but ONLY if the president proposes them).

And Mrs. Lincoln had a lovely time at the theater, other than the unpleasantness with the disgruntled southerner...

The power to declare war and the power to make the final decision on foreign treaties are biggies, wouldn't you say?

Since the Constitution explicitly gives Congress exclusive authority to make the most important decisions concerning foreign affairs, one cannot rationally define "executive power" to mean "exclusive and discretionary authority over all matters pertaining to foreign affairs." Nothing in Article II says that or even remotely implies it. It is a fantasy.

"Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" is not a "power"; it is a title. Given that Section 3 of Article II specifically obligates the President to make sure that U.S. laws are "faithfully executed," isn't the conclusion inescapable that the president must comply with the laws of the country (including but not limited to FISA) when performing his or her duties as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy?

>>>And I have no idea where you get Congress having the power "to make the most important decisions concerning foreign affairs."

What foreign-affairs decisions are more important than declaring war and making treaties?

You said: "If a law is unconstitutional, where is the president's duty? To faithfully execute that law? Or to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?"

That depends first on who is in charge of deciding whether a law is unconstitutional. For about two centuries, this country has operated on the principle that the Supreme Court is in charge of that.

You appear to be suggesting that "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" empowers the President to INTERPRET the Constitution, decide whether the nation's duly enacted laws are "constitutional," and disregard or disobey those laws that he (in his sole discretion) deems "unconstitutional." (Perhaps I should say, "Yoo appear to be suggesting...")

I guess that would make sense if Article II directed the president to take care that the laws are "faithfully executed, unless the President thinks that a given law is unconstitutional."

You didn't read Marbury v. Madison, did you?

Well, sure a president can act like a dictator and declare, as an exercise of raw power, that he will do what he pleases irrespective of what the law says. But under our system of laws, the president is not SUPPOSED to do that. That's why the Constitution requires the president to faithfully execute "the laws" (as distinguished from "the laws that the president agrees with").

Some people take the idea of constitutional governance seriously, and some self-described "realists" think it is a joke. You are in the latter group. That is fine, of course; you're entitled to your point of view, but obviously you will never reach common ground with the folks who think the words on the paper actually mean something.

I'm better informed than most, but I don't know what civil liberties were denied Jose Padilla.

I admire your inexhaustible zest for debate, I really do. I also admire your politeness when not everyone is polite to you. (Though I sympathize with their reasons for being impolite to you.)

According to you (and this summary of your position is not intended snarkily), the president has discretionary authority to (1) deem any duly enacted American law unconstitional and refuse (openly or secretly) to comply with it; and (2) deem any American citizen to be an enemy of America and have that citizen locked up indefinitely with no rights of any kind.

If any part of the above summary is inaccurate, please advise.

If it is accurate, why not just admit that you favor dictatorship as the best form of government?

With any luck and another cup of coffee, I'll be able to spell "unconstitutional" correctly on the first try. Sigh.