North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

Human Events Online ^ | Jun 19, 2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[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.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The police and army will do what the politicians say.
After all, we elected them. Even though there wasn't a real choice.

And if the court had upheld it, police would have followed through taking every gun in NO no matter how they felt and nobody would have resisted.

[tertiary01]

You should call your friends and demonstrate. I have some well used Mexican Flags I found after one of the local demonstrations, I will sell you cheap.

[Comstock1]

The world goes round no matter what we do. There is usually a tit for every tat.

[MikefromOhio]

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.

shhhhhh :)

Don't poke too many holes in the conspiracy theory. It might stop the fun :)

[1rudeboy]

OMG, I inadvertently started a discussion of Marbury! Run for the hills! :)

Marbury "authorizes" the Supreme Court to review acts of Congress. A treaty, or a "trade agreement" for that matter, ultimately is such a thing.

[Theoden]

Yes: Does it hurt?

Not at all. Perhaps it would if I were a simple minded country boy, but that certainly is not the case.

[LachlanMinnesota]

I would probably agree with you as to how this is interpreted, but I was hoping some legal eagle would have a case in mind that the court actually agreed with that interpretation as well.

Sometimes the courts have done some weird things, like saying that you could take private land for someone else to develop for profit, and I would hate for that attidtude to bleed into other areas.

Oh well, I gusss I'll live with the mystery...

[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

[LachlanMinnesota]

I better read the case berffore I say something stupid about it, since I thought it was about honoring an appointment of a person made by a person in the prior administration, because the subsequent administration did not honor that appoitnment. I could be wrong, so no need to run for the hills...I'll quit.

[MikefromOhio]

You should call your friends and demonstrate. I have some well used Mexican Flags I found after one of the local demonstrations, I will sell you cheap.

And now the REAL reason for this entire episode shows it's ugly head.........unless I'm mistaken....which it doesn't feel like.....

[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.

[Comstock1]

Not to mention that Article III gives the power to review treaties to the courts.

Marbury was always a favorite case. Basically, the Supreme Court gets the final say because the court says it does. I never understood why none of the other branches challenged this at the time--the language in Article III doesn't support this to my mind--but that would describe about half of their decisions to me also.

[Eastbound]

"The police and army will do what the politicians say."

Don't bet on it. New Orleans was a wake-up call on both sides of the fence.

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

States don't get to vote on treaties.

[Comstock1]

I'm not going to do any research on this--too many late nights back in school doing it for a degree I ultimately decided I didn't want. However, for those of you who like "black letter" law: Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority There ya go.

[tertiary01]

From a poster who makes a living on FR mocking others about believing in CONSPIRACY THEORIES. Heal thyself.

[Comstock1]

Whoops, forgot the "in for a penny, in for a pound" html rules here. Let me reformat that one.

I'm not going to do any research on this--too many late nights back in school doing it for a degree I ultimately decided I didn't want. However, for those of you who like "black letter" law:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...

There ya go.

[AmishDude]

And getting a trilateral holiday is a problem. There's Canada Day, Cinco de Mayo and the Fourth of July. Most of us want Cinco de Mayo because it involved beating the French, but the Quebecois got annoyed.

[Joan Kerrey]

More than one treaty has had provisions clipped by a court.

Exactly. Another conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water.
Considering today's combative politics I don't think one has to worry much about any conspiracy sneaking in while the citizens of the U.S. are sleeping.

No unconstitutional treaty is going to trump our Constitution without a war never before imagined in the history of politics.