[mcvey]

No. Not really. The Constitution states that "This constitution . . . all Treaties made, or which shall be made, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

This specifically puts Treaties at the same level as the Constitution. It was why Republicans tried to push through the Bricker Amendment until Eisenhower said he could not conduct negotiations if the Bricker Amendment was in place. I like Ike, but he was wrong there.

McVey

[CatoRenasci]

Ried v. Covert was after the Bricker amendment failed.

There is no question that this was Stevens' FU to the Bush administration, Souter's FU to the people who don't like Kelo, and Ruthie's FU to America on general principles.

[ChuckShick]

No. Not really. The Constitution states that "This constitution . . . all Treaties made, or which shall be made, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." There is a semicolon in the clause, which sets off two types of laws: the Constitution and laws pursuant thereof and treaties. The words 'in pursuance thereof' only applied to Congressional law, not treaties because the Founders wanted to preserve treaties made prior to the enactment of the Constitution. I believe there are a number of treaties that we have signed that state things that violate or run counter to the Bill of Rights. They, of course, are not the supreme law of the land because of the wording of Art. VI and the subsequent cases, Reid being one of them. Reid v. Covert, decided in 1956, states that the court has "regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution [U.S.] over a treaty."