Yet, according to the U.S. Constitution (Article VI), which all of our elected and appointed officials have been sworn to uphold and defend, it is the Constitution which is the “supreme law of the land” — not trade agreements or treaties that conflict with the Constitution.
>>>it is the Constitution which is the “supreme law of the land” — not trade agreements or treaties that conflict with the Constitution.
Then why do we trade with China?
After having taught American Government for many years and reading a lot of material on the Constitution by a lot of folks, both liberal and extremely conservative (John Birch Society among others) I have to conclude that the Founding Fathers built into the document a mechanism to allow the President to effectively fulfill his role as provided in the Constitution to negotiate with foreign nations. That mechanism is the treaty making powers. The proper oversight (the check and balance if you will) is of course the US Senate which can ratify a treaty or not. I think that the Framers found the possibility of a corrupt President to be credible, thus the need for Senate oversight. But I think they didn't and couldn't foresee the state of the nation as it appears to have become with globalization threatening as well as the degradation of the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd Amendment. If they had seen that, they surely would have made the Bill of Rights much more specific and stronger.
Actually, as of right now treaties DO in fact supercede the Constitution. Bills introduced in the 1950's to rectify this were defeated.
It has been discussed here on Free Republic.
It is one reason not to ratify things like the Kyoto Accords. They would put the Congress and law enforcement into a hammerlock unless or until the US formally withdrew.
Best regards,