Replies

No, it's not BS. Paragraph 2 of Article VI was quoted verbatim in my previous post. All state and local laws, including state Constitutions, are trumped by treaties ratified by the US government - that's what it clearly says. The only thing that trumps a treaty (so far) is the Constitution itself, along with those federal laws enacted to implement it. There have been a fair number of federal court decisions confirming this doctrine plus considerable debate within the legal community about whether or not treaties supercede the Constitution itself. Thankfully, no whack-job federal judge has ruled that treaties trump the Constitution - yet. Up until the post WW II era, the USA was not a party to very many treaties apart from minor bilateral ones covering copyright and patent protections. So, to go back to your example, any California laws prohibiting feces-covered tomatos are utterly trumped by NAFTA - they apply only to US-grown tomatos. Unless there are specific provisions in that treaty allowing localities (state governments) to prohibit things such as fecal tomatos, there isn't a bloody thing the states can do about it - period. In past times the people who had congress' ear were better informed about the Constitution and were likely a lot more patriotic. This is why treaties like GATT, NAFTA, and the proposed CEDAW are so dangerous - epsecially when coupled with the federal judiciary's fondness of legislating from the bench.

The original U.S. Senate was comprised of appointees from the state legislatures. Treaties were made with their advice and consent. This made sense because the U.S. Congress could only implement a treaty through its limited powers as delegated and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. The bulk of modern treaty provisions would have to be implemented by the states through their powers. As the Senate represented the states, this worked out.

When the system was changed to reflect a modern "democratic" popular vote for the Senators, it left a barrier to implementation of treaty provisions. In early 20 th century environmental cases, SCOTUS ruled that because a treaty existed, then national power beyond that enumerated in the Constitution had to exist in order to implement the treaty. In effect, the treaties were used to enlarge federal power and create a centralized hierarchial pre-emptive government, rather than the compound republic intended by the founders.