To: Carry_Okie
If you're referring to John Jay's treaty of 1794, that was attacked as unconstitutional for a number of reasons, but most stridently on the grounds that it was a commercial treaty, and as such usurped Congress' power over commerce. But it doesn't appear that the courts ever ruled that way.
34 posted on
09/27/2003 3:41:20 PM PDT by
inquest
(World socialism: the ultimate multinational corporation)
To: inquest
If you're referring to John Jay's treaty of 1794, that was attacked as unconstitutional for a number of reasons, but most stridently on the grounds that it was a commercial treaty, and as such usurped Congress' power over commerce. But it doesn't appear that the courts ever ruled that way. BTW, I hadn't forgotten my commitment to you to get back to you re this business of unconstitutional treaties. You were correct; I was referring to Jay's treaty and the SCOTUS has not yet repudiated a treaty. You have thus identified my book's first substantitve erratum. I have yet to write the note but it will be included in each book I ship in the future.
Thank you.
Still, considering the scope of the Convention on Nature Protection, and its impossible goal of completely stopping natural selection...
I think we have a candidate.
35 posted on
05/05/2004 9:28:42 PM PDT by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson