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: Neocon who wrote (125967)	3/12/2004 12:53:42 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<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a treaty, and then passes a law which violates the treaty (without renegotiating it with the foreign nations who they originally made an agreement with), then they are acting in bad faith.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 It remains the supreme law, until the treaty is declared un-constitutional by the Supreme Court, or repealed by Congress.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.

To: Neocon who wrote (125967)	3/12/2004 1:03:10 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail A very simple and correct exposition of the obvious. A longer and equally correct exposition of the obvious: 'It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument. This results from the nature and fundamental principles of our government. The effect of treaties and acts of Congress, when in conflict, is not settled by the Constitution. But the question is not involved in any doubt as to its proper solution. A treaty may supersede a prior act of Congress, and an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty.' The Cherokee Tobacco, 1870, 11 Wall. 616, 620-621, 20 L.Ed. 227.