You have a problem with logic and with reading comprehension.
I never said that Legislation trumps a Treaty. In fact, a Treaty trumps almost every other form of law.
No. But you do.
I never said that Legislation trumps a Treaty. In fact, a Treaty trumps almost every other form of law.
In other threads, you've said that statutes trump the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution:
To: LachlanMinnesota
Look at your own flawed “logic” on the issue. There is NO direct, Constitutional definition of NBC. It is entirely CONSTITUTIONAL, therefore, for CONGRESS to define such terms. Courts, for many years, had to resort to Common Law for a definition of citizenship, itself.Then, legislation was passed by Congress as to what requirements had to be met, to be a Citizen at Birth.
Hamilton shot another founder in a dual. Adams and Jefferson hated each other.
Our Founders, more than likely, disagreed on many citizenship issues.
This is WHY the definition of citizenship was left to Congress.
142 posted on Wed Feb 01 2012 21:14:38 GMT-0800 (PST) by Kansas58
If Congress can change the meanings of words in the Constitution, then they can make the Constitution mean whatever they want. That would enable them to make the Constitution totally irrelevant.
The same logic applies to treaties. So by arguing that Congress has the power to be the final authority regarding the meanings of words, you are in fact claiming that Congress has the power to enact legislation that trumps a treaty.