Article VI, Clause 2: 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 [emphasis added], shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
With all due respect Political Junkie Too, why would the Founding States make the Article V amendment ratification process if they had also intended for the President and Senate to create new enumerated powers for the federal government by means of treaties?
Also, note that Clause 2 above was written before the ill-conceived 17th Amendment was ratified, state legislators uniquely having the power to elect senators.
Regarding constitutional limits on the federal government’s power to establish treaties, not that both Thomas Jefferson, and more importantly the Supreme Court, had clarified that the feds cannot use their constitutional authority to make treaties as a backdoor to expand the federal government’s powers.
Here’s relevant excerpts from Jefferson’s writings.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” — Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812 .
Note that Jefferson undoubtedly based his insight to limits of treaty power on his experience as vice president and president of the Senate.
Here’s the Supreme Court’s clarification.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Reid v. Covert, 1956.
That's a good question.
I'm not as knowledgeable about such things as I ought to be. Your quotes were insightful.
The Obama agreement commits the United States to defend Iran's nuclear facilities and provide some scientific research. As long as it's not ratified as a treaty, the next president can terminate the agreement. It's just that critics are calling it a de facto treaty ratified outside of the treaty process. There is no War Powers act committing USA troops, and mutual defense pacts are treaties (and the states would be providing the materiel without their consent).
It's a giant unconstitutional mess, and I cannot believe that an article V Convention of States could be worse than how the federal government is acting now.
-PJ