Replies

The Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." It is controlling as to all officials of the three Branches of the Federal government--Executive, Legislative and Judicial--with regard to all of their pronouncements, actions, decisions, agreements and legislative Acts. Each of them is sworn, by oath of office, to support the Constitution ONLY. To be valid, any treaty must be strictly in conformity to--free from any conflict with--the Constitution. A treaty is like a Federal law in this respect.

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "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 the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties. Source

Each of them is sworn, by oath of office, to support the Constitution ONLY.

The precise wording of only one oath of office is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. It is the presidential oath. It reads "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, not merely support it. Most other federal, state and local oaths of public office incorporate that phrase. Tragically, few politicians at any level appear to take that oath seriously. Which brings me to the second part of your reply to me:

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties...

It's critical to grasp the correct -- and plain -- meaning of Article VI, Section 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 the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

Any treaty duly signed by a U.S. president and ratified by the Senate is, together with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Without question, conflicts in the language of a particular treaty and the language of the Constitution can occur. Such conflicts would have to be addressed in the legislation passed by Congress to enable executive action for the provisions of any treaty.

The whole thing can become a legal quagmire, especially with something as explosive as the ICC treaty. This is why it's absolutely critical to try to stop ratification of the ICC treaty in the Senate. And issues like this are exactly why I'll repeat as long as necessary that ELECTIONS HAVE THOUSANDS OF CONSEQUENCES.