The Constitution and American Sovereignty

Hillsdale Imprimis, vol38, number 7/8 ^ | July/August 2009 | Jeremy Rabkin

[RicocheT]

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be "the supreme Law of the Land"; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: "A treaty cannot change the frame of the government." And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

[RicocheT]

This month's Imprimis has an excellent comment on American sovereignty and the limits our Constitution puts on Congress delegating our rights to international bodies.

[ncfool]

“Make Mine Freedom!” 1948 cartoon about saving the American dream!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehDvnlyJPTA

[Jacquerie]

Super post. The Left would have us believe that treaties with international bodies give said bodies authority superior to our Constitution.

Heck, everyone knows that real authority is at the appellate level as determined by wise Latina judges.

[Paul Ross]

BUMP!

[SuperLuminal]

bttt

[Family Guy]

That cartoon was freakin’ great! Thanks for the link.