Treaties can't trump the Constitution but corrupt politicians can

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s expected signing of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty has once again raised the question of whether the terms of a treaty can take precedence over—even nullify—the rights acknowledged and secured by the Constitution of the United States.

For decades, apostles of one world government have endeavored to convince the American people that treaties, rather than the Constitution, embody the supreme law of the land. In 1952, Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that “Treaty law can override the Constitution.” “Treaties for example…can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” (1)

HitLIARy’s signing of this document is symbolic only! Only the President can sign treaties committing the US to ANYTHING and then the treaty must be ratified by the Senate!!

Assuming that HitLIARy does sign the treaty (and, we know she will), IF zero tries to enforce it, or the UN tries to put boots on the ground to enforce it, the “American Spring” will be on!

You want to take my guns away that the Constitution says I am allowed to own!!??? You’ll have to eat some lead first!! That’s NOT a threat, that’s a PROMISE!!!

Why then does Dick Morris insist that once a treaty is ratified, it cannot be overturned by Congress even though it may be unconstitutional.

Because, despite appearances to the contrary, Morris is still a moron leftist at heart! His political predictions are usually wrong and the only political topic he really knows well is the Clinons.

Once they are finally gone, so is his "career" as a political analyst!!

It would seem to be obvious that the Constitution would trump a treaty but Supreme Court precedent is actually in conflict on the issue.

In 1915 congress had passed a law that protected migratory birds, the state of Missouri sued and the law was struck down as unconstitutional. Then Congress ratified a Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada with exact same language, the state sued again. But the Supreme Court allowed the treaty to stand on the grounds that an international treaty trumped the constitution.

However...

In 1957 The Supreme Court ruled in Reid v. Covert and Kinsella v. Krueger that even though the United States was party to a treaty that stated the spouses and dependents of Servicemen abroad would be prosecuted for crimes committed abroad under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, A treaty could not abrogate the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

This is what most legal scholars believe is current precedent, and even the NRA says on it's webpage that a treaty can not override the bill or rights. But I certainly wouldn't want to pin my hopes on internationalist liberal Supreme Court upholding this.

This is why it is a bad idea to ignore the Constitution, doing so creates indecision and chaos. The people who talk of a “Living Constitution” want and need to ignore the Amendment process. Usually they are the same group and persuasion that pushed for the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) and don’t like the failed outcome.

What we see here with these various treaties (mostly UN) is a variant on the concept and the challenge of law and Constitutional Law. The Constitution in Article VI states that the US Constitution, the laws adhering to the Constitution and the Treaties passed under “the authority of the United States” are “the supreme law of the land”. Since this treaty “authority” is back-stopped by the Article II 2 provisions of the US President making and 2/3s of the Senate affirming any treaty and since all are bound by their oath to “preserve and protect the Constitution”, it is hard for me to see how anyone can claim that any treaty can supersede the US Constitution.

Still, given our recent history, I much prefer for these UN Treaties to remain unsigned and un-ratified and thus null and void inside our borders!

. . . it is hard for me to see how anyone can claim that any treaty can supersede the US Constitution.

I agree, however . . . .

The Constitution is not one article, one sentence, one concept. It is entirely possible for someone to use one part of the Constitution - the part you quoted - to overrule another part of the Constiution. "The Constitution" as a whole is not superceded, but parts of it can be. Or at least might me.

It's very interesting - and very depressing - to me that out of several comments on both this site and the site of the parent article . . places where one would expect to find conservative thought . . . there are many posters who bring up what the Supreme Court has said, but you are the first to bring up what the Constitution actually says.

And unfortunately, it is not unreasonable to read what it says in a very dangerous way.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

Ultimately, this would require that the Senate, by 2/3 vote, concur, but if they do, then they have just had the effect of amending the Constitution. There is a point of contention on whether the provisions of a treaty have effect in the interim between being signed by a legal, recognized representative of the United States and being ratified by the Senate; for example, a peace treaty (think of the signing on the deck of the Missouri). But if the Senate approves the violation of our rights, then they're gone.

Unless we take them back. I hear a lot of talk about that, but see very little action. I'm not encouraged.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.