Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (125937)	3/11/2004 9:23:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Ah, but the treaties must be made "under the Authority of the United States", i.e. constitutionally. I have neve heard an argument that the Senate has the power to abrogate any part of the Constitution through its right to make treaties. A particularly important point regarding such proposed treaties as the Rome Ruling, which aims to take supreme judicial power regarding "war crimes" (or anything the ICC defines as "war crimes") away from the Supreme Court, and to the ICC.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (125937)	3/12/2004 9:20:29 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Under section 2 of article III: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. This means that the Supreme Court ultimately gets to determine what is kosher or not, in respect of treaty obligations. (What you quoted mainly speaks to federal authority versus state authority). Among the things the Court has determined: Congressional Repeal of Treaties .--It is in respect to his contention that, when it is asked to carry a treaty into effect, Congress has the constitutional right, and indeed the duty, to determine the matter according to its own ideas of what is expedient, that Madison has been most completely vindicated by developments. This is seen in the answer which the Court has returned to the question: What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress' constitutional powers. To be sure, legislative repeal of a treaty as law of the land may amount to a violation of it as an international contract in the judgment of the other party to it. In such case, as the Court has said: ''Its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.'' 303 caselaw.lp.findlaw.com The foregoing means that a treaty provision can be superceded by an simple act of Congress.