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 (125982)	3/12/2004 1:18:06 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The power to decide all Constitutional questions relating to treaties belongs to the Court. In this case, we are not contemplating complete revocation of a treaty. We are contemplating the situation of Congress superceding a treaty provision through simple statute, which the Court says is Constitutional. The treaty may continue to held to be in effect, in all other respects. Yes, there is enormous pressure not to renege on treaty commitments, ordinarily. However, situations may be contemplated where the conflict of national interest and treaty commitments cannot await negotiated resolution. The idea that treaties are part of the "Supreme Law" primarily pertains to the binding power of federal treaties on the states of the union. The only point I was making is that we cannot enter into a treaty that surrenders sovereignty. It is Constitutionally impossible. So important is this principle that it does not take solemn revocation to supercede a treaty provision, it takes an ordinary act of Congress.