[mnehring]

It says plainly that congress has the authority to define and and punish offenses against the laws of nations. Whether congress decides to define US interest as following X law, is the congressional representation of the people. In this case, congress went into a treaty with the UN and Iraq (cession of hostility) which would be considered a law of nations. It defined that law as in the interest of the country and punished the offense against that law. It did not blindly hand off sovereignty of the US, it simply used the laws of nations as a tool in our interest.

[George W. Bush]

In this case, congress went into a treaty with the UN and Iraq (cession of hostility) which would be considered a law of nations.

No, the U.N. brokered a peace agreement. Effectively, a cease-fire.

In this case, congress went into a treaty with the UN and Iraq (cession of hostility) which would be considered a law of nations.

The Constitution doesn't recognize such laws unless Stevens and Breyer and Ginsberg on the Court go nuts and invent a penumbra or emanation.

The Constitution does not recognize a higher authority than the People and the sovereignty of the government it establishes. This is why the liberal elites work so hard to destroy it and resort to the U.N., the international courts, NAFTA/CAFTA, open-borders, etc.