"The powerful US-based National Rifle Association contests this, however, saying it will seek to stop any treaty in the US Senate if it is ratified.
The NRA should learn more about that and also begin opposing bills like SB197 in Colorado, but it doesn't have the manliness to oppose feminist incremental attacks against the Second Amendment.
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty" (Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17).
Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
“As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.”
TREATIES DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION
Curtis W. Caine, MD
Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)
In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.
posted on 03/27/2013 9:04:41 PM PDT
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
To: familyop; philman_36
In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution!
Horse pucky. I'm insisting that they do supersede the Constitution (at least in practice if not technically) because I don't want people pitching a false sense of security.
- There are treaties that have been on the books for over fifty years that so plainly exceed the limits of the government's enumerated powers that it isn't worth the argument.
- There are laws that cite those treaties as the source of their authority. Why would they do that if they were otherwise Constitutional?
- Those laws have been used to deprive the people of their unalienable rights to takings of property without just compensation.
- Pursuant to said provisions, treaties have been ratified with no committee vote and no record of a quorum.
- The language of the Supremacy Clause can be read two ways, simply because the commas therein render it so. This was, in my judgment a deliberate act.
- The agent in charge of slipping this into the language along with the bogus matter of treaty ratification was Hamilton. He plainly lied about it in Federalist 75.
- Hamilton claimed it was among the most discussed elements of the Federal Convention. It is false. There was virtually NO discussion of the treaty power.
- In my estimation, the reason the language was there was pursuant to the demands of our lenders, so that the government could have the funds to defend the country from reconquest.
It was a bad deal. We should have amended both Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 and the Article VI Supremacy Clause. That was never done.
Hence, there are treaties that wildly exceed Constitutional limitations, not one has ever been thrown out by a court, and the United States has agreed to not contravene their terms upon signature alone without ANY authority for the last forty years.
Please wake up.
posted on 03/28/2013 7:21:27 AM PDT
(An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson