Posted on 05/06/2007 8:21:20 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
And require premium compensation, like say 125% of the highest reasonable appraisal, as compensation for people having to leave a place they might not have chosen to leave, and a disincentive for governments to use condemnation unless the land is direly needed.
Maybe someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember a case back in the 1950’s where the supreme court ruled that a signed and ratified treaty can NOT supercede the constitution and is null and void if it attempts to.
I’m no lawyer, but, I think that Article VI is clearly stating a hierarchy of laws and authority. The Constitution trumps Federal laws, which trump treaties, which trump State constitutions and laws. I think that proof of treaties’ inferiority to Federal law can be shown by the fact that no Indian tribe, AFAIK, has ever been able to recover damages when Congress abrogates a treaty. (They’ve had to make any recoveries the good, ol’ fashioned way: By bribing Congress!) If your theory were true, the Senate and the President could conspire to amend the Constitution by entering into convenient treaties with any banana republic wanting a little cash.
And you accomplished that--very well.
Alarmed and sickened at the same time.
No treaty has ever been trumped by the Constitution in the Supreme Court. If the example provided in the Convention on Nature Protection isn't enough, I don't know what is.
In seven years discussing this on FR, I've never seen anyone cite such a case, and believe me, there has been occasion.
Thanks!!!
Wake up America!
Great concept - but how about 150%? Give government a real disincentive to take private property.
However, those rights enumerated were in fact guarantees.
Otherwise a treaty could invalidate the right to free speech along with all the others.
Of course such matters would not prevent them from trying.
All it takes is the power to enforce whatever they think and the rest of it is moot.
However, those rights enumerated were in fact guarantees.
No, it was a promise to guarantee, which has been grossly violated. Limited powers were enumerated and have been wildly exceeded.
Otherwise a treaty could invalidate the right to free speech along with all the others.
What the hell do you think "hate speech" is for? /s
Of course such matters would not prevent them from trying.
Or succeeding. See North Korea.
I’m OK with that. No doubt this would help stop condemnation of private citizens’ property for profit, but as soon as being condemned becomes profitable, city councils will start going around condemning each other and their buddies who want to sell anyway, and see a chance to do so at above market value, at the taxpayers expense. Something would need to be in place to prevent that.
WOW. I honestly never looked at treaties that way. Thank you. Years ago, I never thought I would say this... I miss Jesse Helms.
reid v Covert: “There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:”
I thought the post was correct, but then found this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html It is Reid v Covert In it, SCOTUS comes right out and says no treaty can supercede the Constitution. Case closed.
OK. You have a point. Never heard of one. I shouldn’t have said case closed, cause with the way judges are, even the words of the Constitution mean nothing. For that matter, same with Congress and this President, and all Presidents going back decades.
This is the closest I could find- it is an implication that it is possible “Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties “are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.”332 As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.333 It does not appear that the Court has ever held a treaty unconstitutional,334 although there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations.335”
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html
Me either. I know that John Jay's Court had forced reconsideration, but the Court never did invalidate the treaty.
I shouldn’t have said case closed, cause with the way judges are, even the words of the Constitution mean nothing. For that matter, same with Congress and this President, and all Presidents going back decades.
Sadly true. If you liked the article, you might enjoy this one on Kelo.
All that said, I agree with Okie - it is a MAJOR concern now, and in the future. The US has taken a turn in the last few decades which is not in keeping with the Constitution on many fronts, and now we even have SCOTUS Justices who look to foreign law as a valid precedent, just to fit their square pegged rulings into tiny little round holes. It is very concerning. The most concerning thing however is how the media and the ACLU see it- they now run the show. I assume they will take the side of a treaty to the detriment of the US, and therefore lead SCOTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.