“Treaties trump feelings, and in fact trump laws. don’t think so? try nafta.”
Wow, really? Several points:
(1) Treaties vs the Constitution has been debated numerous times, but the issues has not been definitively settled by the SCOTUS (despite what some on the internet say in their blogs). The serious legal scholarship says that yes, as the “supreme law of the land,” a properly ratified treaty could trump the Constitution. The problem is that Congress would be acting outside of their Constitutional authority by ratifying such a treaty, rendering it moot.
(2) Ukraine is not governed by the US Constitution.
(3) Countries ignore treaties when their national survival is at stake. Or even by whim. Since this is a case of the former, do you really think a piece of paper is going to matter?
fair, I pointed out nafta, and thus invoked US interpretation of treaties.
1) I don’t (and you don’t seem to either) know what the legal nature of the agreement between ukraine and russia is on the crimean port. Do you have hard data on this agreement? I don’t.
2) no pending case exists in the US on this issue. None will, I confidently predict lol.
3) If this is a legal measure by Ukraine under their existing agreement with russia, it is less likely to be over-turned by the Ukrainian govt in some fashion than if it is ‘ink on a page’ type of technicality.
We return to point 1, since neither you nor I have been able to state what the respective parties actually agreed to with the port in question.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to ratify Treaties. Thereby, it also gives Congress the authority to abrogate them.