[LachlanMinnesota]

Part of Article VI of the Constitution:

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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Does this clause place treaties on the same level with the constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land?" Higher? the phrase "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" is a very dangerous phrase if interpreted in certain ways.

If so, does it not follow that there can be treaties which are inconsistent with the constitutional terms? Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?

My concern is that a president will enter into a treaty, and 2/3 of the Senate will ratify it, an it will erode our constitutional rights. Has this issue been dealt with in the context of treaties which, for example, provide for trials that do not include our constitutional rights?

I am concerned that the various trade agreements made or to be made in the future will be the route by which our national life is irreparably harmed.

[1rudeboy]

As I pointed out to someone else a long time ago, it's pretty tough to imagine a document (such as the U.S. Constitution) that authorizes another document (a treaty) to supercede itself.

[Eastbound]

"Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership?"

Only if you let them.

Laws in America that violate your right to defend your life do not have to be obeyed. Never forget it.

[Comstock1]

This clause is to establish that the laws of the federal government (including treaties) are to have precedence over that of the states. It does not put the agreements established by treaty above those of the Constitution.

I'm not a lawyer, but my small dose of legal training says that the courts aren't going to be excluded when someone challenges a treaty provision as a violation of the Constitution.

Treaties are on the same level as all other federal laws. However, this means that they can't violate the Constitution the same way that Congress can't by passing unconstitutional laws.

[GrandEagle]

Does this clause place treaties on the same level with the constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land?"
That is the argument that is being, and will be made. That n"we the people" would allow the Congress to treaty on things they had no authority to legislate on would have been a bazaar thought to the founders I believe. Therefore, this situation was not addressed in the Constitution.

Cordially,
GE

[samson1097]

My concern is that a president will enter into a treaty, and 2/3 of the Senate will ratify it, an it will erode our constitutional rights.


It would also need 2/3rds of the states to approve. I don't see that happening.

[tpaine]

Part of Article VI of the Constitution:

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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

-- does it not follow that there can be treaties which are inconsistent with the constitutional terms? Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?

"-- in Pursuance thereof --" is the operative phrase.
Any law or treaty that was repugnant to our Constitutions principles would be null & void. [see Marbury]

[Captain Rhino]

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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

IIRC, they are listed in order of precedence (i.e., the Constitution is superior to US laws and treaties, US law is superior to treaties but not to the Constitution, etc.).

However, having said this, there is a certain amount of patriotism and due diligence required on the part of federal lawmakers and judges needed to keep these matters in their proper relationships. Many communist states had/have wonderful constitutions and laws on paper. It is the character of the men and women enforcing the laws that makes all the difference. So, in the end, it is a government of laws and people.

[itsahoot]

Part of Article VI of the Constitution:

You really think a few words in the Constitution really rule?

[lepton]

"any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" is a very dangerous phrase

if interpreted in certain ways. If so, does it not follow that there can be treaties which are inconsistent with the constitutional terms? Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?

Treaties can be inconsistant with State Constitutions and over-rule them, yes.