And, once again, the SCOTUS does not seem to have even come close to ruling that if we sign a treaty with the UN revoking peoples freedom of religion, speech, assembly, right to due process--hell, you know the Bill of Rights; no knowledgeable rational person, including you, would seriously suggest the Supremacy Clause makes it constitutional for the Senate to ratify and the President sign a treaty revoking the Bill of Rights. However, if we're to have true separation of church and state (though the Treaty of Tripoli makes a different argument, one that doesn't necessarily state separation of church and state, but merely precludes America creation as a "Christian nation" ) officeholders in one can't be officeholders in the other, because there's a clear and automatic conflict, and if that denies all or part of the franchise or First Amendment rights, too bad.

Which is why the First Amendment doesn't state separation of church and state, it states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment or religion or restricting the free exercise thereof. The federal government can't take sides, but it's not obligated to remain oblivious, nor barred from utilizing religious resources at its disposal for civic services (the problem with Bushs faith based initiatives was that he clearly DID play favorites (and that he wanted to put undercover informants in congregations) not the initiatives themselves). I happen to support a LIMITED separation, but have no more patience with those offended by Presidents swearing on bibles than with those convinced Obama swore on the Koran. Two sides of the same coin, in my book, and not what I think the Framers had in mind.