Replies

The only problem is, treaties don't trump the Constitution.

Treaty law was Patrick Henry's "rat" in the original Constitution. For bald-faced smoke and mirrors treatment of the manner in which they are ratified (of which your posts are but a shallow imitation), Hamilton's Federalist 75 really takes the cake.

Not one treaty has EVER been declared unconstitutional, despite the fact that some are physically impossible to satisfy, not to mention outrageously far beyond the scope of the Constitution.

Need an example?

The Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere is so vague and open-ended that it must be read to be believed. How it was ratified in the early 1940s leads one to question the intent (or understanding) of the Senate because its virtually unlimited scope is clearly beyond their powers. From the Preamble (bold emphasis added):
"The Governments of the American Republics, wishing to protect and preserve in their natural habitat representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough to assure them from becoming extinct through any agency within man's control;"

After going on at considerable length about wilderness areas and national parks, they come back with this language in Article V Section 1:

"The Contracting Governments agree to adopt, or to propose such adoption to their respective appropriate law-making bodies, suitable laws and regulations for the protection and preservation of flora and fauna within their national boundaries but not included in the national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, or strict wilderness reserves referred to in Article II hereof."

All species, all land, no limits to the commitment. Ratification of a treaty with this scope exceeds the constitutional authority of the government of the United States. It is a betrayal of its citizens and their land. It can't work either.
This treaty is contrary to natural law.
Nature is a dynamic, adaptive, and competitive system. Under changing conditions, some species go extinct, indeed, for natural selection to operate, they must. The problem arises because human agency and influence is so pervasive that one can always conclude that a threatened species loss is within man's control. When humans ask, "Which ones lose?" the treaty specifies, "None," and demands no limit to the commitment to save them all. This of course destroys the ability to act as agent to save anything, much less objectively evaluate how best to do the best that can be done.
The demand of this treaty is a mutually exclusive logic. It cannot be satisfied.

So let's take a cursory look at that rat, shall we?

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; 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 regard to the last phrase, it isn't clear whether it means the Constitution of the US or the respective Constitutions of the several States. My guess is that it is the latter, but if it is not, then we run into problems with the commas in the phrase empowering treaties. To make the ambiguity clear, I will rewrite it two ways.

If one removes the first comma, it reads:

"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...."

To which any sane person would agree. Treaties adopted lacking Constitutional authority should be void. Now lets look at it the other way:

"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land...."

This reading of the clause limits enforcement of the treaty to the the powers authorized to the United States by the Constitution, which, as long as the final phrase in the clause is missing is fine too. HOWEVER, If one takes the second reading and states that the first comma is the governing attribute it reads like this:

and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States 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.

Where we could get all wrapped up wondering which Constitution(s) they were talking about. One then wonders if that also trumps secession.

Note the emphasis on Judges and using the Judiciary to resolve any conflicts. I sometimes wonder if this wasn't a deliberate time bomb. I hate that first comma after the word "made." If I had the power to amend the Constitution, that would be one of the changes I would make (another would require ratification by two thirds of the full Senate as opposed to two thirds of "Senators present," which, considering how many treaties, including the Convention on Nature Protection, have been ratified fraudulently, is a most interesting thread of history).

The remainder of the Constitution is entirely clear that its purpose is to secure unalienable rights. The problem is that the last phrase of Article VI Clause 2 could be interpreted to trump the rest as long as one thinks that the Constitution could include a clause that trumps itself. My guess is that it was demanded by our creditors, those loving European nations that defined what constituted nationhood in order to loan us that money Mr. Hamilton wanted so desperately.