Son of Detroit
03-20-2011, 08:44 AM
I've ran into this argument many times arguing with liberals who are backing Obama's military intervention in Libya. It amazes me how off some people are in their facts. I don't know where this idea is coming from, but it's totally wrong.
The Supreme Court ruled in Reid v. Covert (1954) that the Constitution supersedes any international law or treaty.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html
"This Court (Supreme Court) has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." ‑ Reid v. Covert. October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg. 17.
"...No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, 'This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;...' There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggests such a result.... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights ‑ let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition ‑ to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot's Debates 1836 ed. pgs. 500, 519). In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
I don't know how to make it more clear than that, but somehow my argument is either,
1) Ignored
2) Spun
3) A combination of the two
Just venting. It's impossible to reach some people, even with cold, hard facts.
The Supreme Court ruled in Reid v. Covert (1954) that the Constitution supersedes any international law or treaty.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html
"This Court (Supreme Court) has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." ‑ Reid v. Covert. October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg. 17.
"...No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, 'This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;...' There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggests such a result.... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights ‑ let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition ‑ to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot's Debates 1836 ed. pgs. 500, 519). In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
I don't know how to make it more clear than that, but somehow my argument is either,
1) Ignored
2) Spun
3) A combination of the two
Just venting. It's impossible to reach some people, even with cold, hard facts.