[ChuckShick]

No. Not really. The Constitution states that "This constitution . . . all Treaties made, or which shall be made, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." There is a semicolon in the clause, which sets off two types of laws: the Constitution and laws pursuant thereof and treaties. The words 'in pursuance thereof' only applied to Congressional law, not treaties because the Founders wanted to preserve treaties made prior to the enactment of the Constitution. I believe there are a number of treaties that we have signed that state things that violate or run counter to the Bill of Rights. They, of course, are not the supreme law of the land because of the wording of Art. VI and the subsequent cases, Reid being one of them. Reid v. Covert, decided in 1956, states that the court has "regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution [U.S.] over a treaty."

[mcvey]

The Reid case, as I read it, hinged on a basis of procedure in the trial of US citizens abroad and whether they had had their procedural rights taken away.

Technically, the SC has always applied "strict scrutiny" to such rights and the question of whether they can be removed.

The key clause on our point in the decision, cited from the Riggs case is:

It would not be contended that [the acceptance of a treaty as the law of the land] extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [354 U.S. 1, 18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."

In essence, the statement divides the constitution into fundamental and less-than-fundamental structures. It is a distinction that is impossible to maintain, as witness the recent SC decision on capital punishment where Kennedy borrowed foreign precedents. The Reid case and its relatives are not, I suspect, controlling in terms of treaties. I still would like to see the Bricker amendment passed. I will, however, say that I did not give any hint of subtlety in my response and maybe I should have. You are making a good argument; I just don't think it is sufficient to override the SC's use of the Geneva convention today. Well, I hope that this is coherent and thank you for a brisk exchange.

McVey