<according to the Constitution, the laws of the United States supercede all treaty commitments.>
1. The power to decide if treaties are Constitutional, lies entirely with the Judicial branch. The power to revoke a treaty, lies entirely with the Legislative Branch. No power, to make or break or modify or rule on any treaty, lies with the Executive. As your post clearly shows. Can we agree on that?
2. If Congress approves a treaty, and then passes a law which violates the treaty (without renegotiating it with the foreign nations who they originally made an agreement with), then they are acting in bad faith. Those foreign nations will say the U.S. has violated promises; wars start over these kind of situations. Yes, Congress has acted dishonestly and confusingly many times in the past, trying to appease both foreigners and domestic interest groups, by saying one thing in a treaty, and then passing contradictory law.
3. You are correct, that the Supreme Court has not consistently interpreted "supreme law" to mean "supreme law". They have repeatedly allowed the Congress and President to get away with a de facto renunciation of treaties, while pretending, de jure, that we are still adhering to them.
4. So, once Congress has passed a treaty, it is the "supreme law of the land". It remains the supreme law, until the treaty is declared un-constitutional by the Supreme Court, or repealed by Congress. This is what the Constitution plainly says, in the sections quoted by both you and I. |
