f they weren't, as some of the justices alluded to, the court would be in trouble with tself. they began with a form of prayer when the marshall declared "god save the united states and this honorable court." as a number of justices made in their remarks today, the government has a dubious role dictating the content of any prayer. the government has no authority to instruct anyone in the form or content of prayer. to tell the citizens when he or she is to pray or not to pray, it is a flagrant violation of the first amendment free exercise clause that expressly prohibits the government from interfering with religious exercise. i felt we heard the justices say very clearly that a government official is in no position to dictate how a prayer should be worded. none of us wants the government telling us what a good prayer is and what a bad prayer is. should this court ban prayer at council meetings or anywhere else, the government would do precisely what the original plaintiffs in this case don't want. that is to establish a religion that requires an innocuous and meaningless praye

tself that is the convention itself does ly regulate individul conduct at all. all so not tells the parties go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way this convention regulates state parties and then what the legislation does as justice ginsburg said just mirrors the convention as the convention contemplated. >> justice kagan what the convention says in article vii, section 1, 33a what it says is that each nation-state convention agrees in accordance with these constitutional processes to pass p. no laws that make it unlawful for individuals conduct that would violate the convention by a nation-state. i would respectfully suggest that making that translation if you will between what violates the condition for a nation-state and what would be comparable individual conduct is not obvious and when the government does that through pena legislation there is no reason why pena legislation shouldn't have to comply. >> mr. clement why not? there can be no doubt that chemical weaponry is at the forefront of our foreign-policy efforts right now. look at the serious