Replies

Except that the US Constitution was clearly not written to allow treaty law to act like constitutional amendments. Here it is:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...”

Treaties make up the supreme law of the land IN ADDITION to the Constitution. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution nor do they amend it. If that was so, then there really was no reason for the founders to write a complicated amendment process.

The article’s author also misreads Hamilton’s intentions. Hamilton probably supported lower standards for treaties (to be passed), because he didn’t think they would override the US Constitution. They might be bad treaties. They might even override state law so long as it concerned an enumerated federal power, but treaties weren’t treated with as much concern because they couldn’t be used to supersede the Constitution.

So, yes. I think the Constitution and treaties are supreme law, but I think it’s illogical to say a treaty can override the Constitution. They are supposed to be compatible with each other.

BTW, if you could point to judicial rulings that claim treaties override Constitutional protections, I’d simply point to the innumerable other rulings that openly defy the Constitution itself. The judges simply make rulings up to suit their purposes, whether it’s the “privacy right” to kill an unborn baby to the right to seize property for virtually any public (government) purpose and not even compensate someone for it if they MIGHT, i.e. not proven in a court of law, have been involved in a crime.

Don't blather that at me like I don't know about the Supremacy Clause. Your problem is that it reads two ways because of the placement of commas, an ambiguity I believe was deliberate.

I suggest you read, carefully, this article which goes into those legal distinctions, as I wrote them both.

The article’s author also misreads Hamilton’s intentions.

Poppycock. The United States was in debt to the point that it could not afford sufficient defense to preclude its reconquest. The French had dictated terms for loans because under the Articles of Confederation there was no way for the United States to assure that they would be repaid. The result is history.