[Carry_Okie]

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of The Federalist for understanding the principles of American government and the challenges that liberal democracies confront early in the second decade of the 21st century.

It would be even more difficult to find college students capable of reading them, much less recognizing the snow job in Federalist 75 with which Hamilton hid a poison pill in the treaty power. Given the pending ratification of LOST or the Small Arms Treaty, it is a serious and current issue.

Hence, one should read the records of the Virginia Ratifying Convention as well.

[Talisker]

...much less recognizing the snow job in Federalist 75 with which Hamilton hid a poison pill in the treaty power. Given the pending ratification of LOST or the Small Arms Treaty, it is a serious and current issue.

There exists a very strong argument that no treaty can violate pre-existing constitutional provisions without being void. The idea that treaties have full force implies that that force comes from somewhere - i.e. the Constitution. Therefore, to draw up a treaty that violates constituional provisions, is to negate the source of that treaty's claim to power.

Of course, interpreting the treaty clause through the 14th Amendment adds another layer of disconnect. But as it was originally written, it wasn't a direct poison pill, and was subject to judicial review vis a vis preexisting constitutional provisions.

On the other hand, Hamilton was a treasonous bastard before there was even a country, and fully deserved the end he received from Burr. Too bad it didn't come sooner.

[zeugma]

Hence, one should read the records of the Virginia Ratifying Convention as well.

Agreed, also see my previous post.