Common talking point: International treaties supersede the Constitution

[Son of Detroit]

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.

[Chester Copperpot]

YEah Ive also heard that argument from conservatives in the relation that since we're a signor to the United Nations Treaty that, THAT supercedes the constitution too..

Of course they don't like it. Most of them that I know wish the UN disappeared.. But there does seem to be this thinking that the constitution is secondary to the UN engrained in their head from somewhere.

[Carson]

No longer our government

No longer our military

[sailingaway]

That is a very scary argument and is CLEARLY what they have been trying to pretend, but only if approved by the Senate in a two thirds vote, for starters, under the Constitution, and I would be pretty firm on my ground to say it can't be used for war because the Constitution already specified how to go to war, or anything else the federal government doesn't have the right to delegate and the supreme law of the land preexisting that 'new' law of the land would have prohibitted it. I don't think you can delegate a power you don't have yourself.

Also, on this one, a provision in the UN Charter (I'm thinking Article 2) says the provisions for going to war will not permit war on a member of the UN by other nation members.

A real legal interpretation would be that that is such an abrogation of the structure of governance that it would require an amendment to the constitution, but a court might always pretend differently if they wanted a different result. In corporations the courts FOUND a duty to tell shareholders and get consent, and the same principles in my mind apply here.

[sailingaway]

Here is the provision; awake was discussing it:


They violated article 2 of the UN Charter in attacking Libya, which is a UN State member.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..."

So if THAT was the agreement our senate agreed to, that is all they can argue is supreme law of the land -- which our Constitution is, as well, as a worst case interpretation (unless they just throw the whole thing out).

[QueenB4Liberty]

Here is the provision; awake was discussing it:



So if THAT was the agreement our senate agreed to, that is all they can argue is supreme law of the land -- which our Constitution is, as well, as a worst case interpretation (unless they just throw the whole thing out).

Good find.

[cswake]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=633053&mesg_id=633053


The UN didn't issue a resolution approving the Iraq war. This is why the RW hates the U.N. They hate international law and order, and only approve of U.S. dominance, including the U.S.'s unilateral right to attack/invade other countries at will.

[S.Shorland]

In the debates last time,even Ron would slip into 'it's against international law' too,after first mentioning your constitution.He also refers to 'democracy' when you are a republic.'They' control the MSM.It may take a generation and the ending of public schools to put things right.We don't have that long.It's a problem.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Someone said the 9th Amendment could be used to justify this, I think that's a bit ridiculous.

[randolphfuller]

The Korean War was fought entirely on the authority of a United Nations Security Council resolution. In Vietnam, both Johnsons and Nixon claimed to be acting under the authority of a treaty, the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization. Seato was disbanded immediately after the conclusion of the War in Vietnam.

[Carson]

Subject: DOJ Web Site Change - VERY IMPORTANT!


"I checked out what you sent me, before forwarding it.

And I found out it is true.

They did remove the American flag emblem.

Here a little there a little until no more United State of America.

Just like you say.

They are very subtle at it, and hoping most people will not notice the change.

Until one day they wake up and wonder where did America go?"

[cswake]

Here's some good ammunition:

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/congress_war_powers_the_president


Did the U.S. Congress delegate the power to compel America to go to war to the United Nations in 1945? That is the startling claim that is being made by some who claim that President Obama's decision to launch a third American war in Libya in addition to the Iraq and Afghan wars is constitutional.

One blogger writes: "The clear legal authority for actions sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council lies within the United Nations Participation Act."

Another blogger writes: "You might also argue that the U.S. Constitution, under Article 1, Section 8 grants congress the exclusive right to make war. But subsequent law, embodied in Title 22 above, obviously override this with respect to treaties and agreements already signed into law (i.e. the UN charter)."

Others are also making this sophistical argument.