“This nation’s credibility would be weakened by non-compliance with treaty obligations or with international norms. The United States seeks to impose international law norms--including, notably, those on terrorism--upon other nations. It would seem strange, then, if the government would seek to avoid enforcement of such norms within its own borders.”
And then comes the real doozie:
“If the statutes are not so interpreted, then in this instance treaties and international law override the statutes and require such a hearing.”
My friends, we are entering completely uncharted territories of hubris.
If a treaty has been ratified by the Senate, then the Judge is correct in so far as treaties, but not international law, are concerned. Treaties override laws, that much is plain. I don't like that because it allows for no change of mind. It's the only way a Congress can bind future Congresses.
Heck even the Constitution can be amended. I think a couple of such amendments, or one with a couple of provisions, are needed. One provision be that ratification of treaties must be by recorded vote of BOTH houses, not just the Senate and by the same supermajority required to pass a Constitutional amendment. The second provision being that by the same supermajority vote of BOTH houses and upon signature by the President, the United States be able, as a matter of domestic law, to overide any provision of a treaty or may withdraw from the treaty completely.
I don't think the original authors ever envisioned treaty provisions would affect individual citizens, nor attempt under color of "treaty" to overide Constitutional provisions, as they can today. This oversite needs to be corrected. Some say treaties even override the Constitution itself, but a close reading of the applicable provisions indicates this not to be the case, although they may override state Constitutions.