The Real John Roberts

The Village Voice ^ | September 2nd, 2005 | Nat Hentoff

[Still Thinking]

Thanks, John.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Your understanding of treaty law is not in conformance with reality. If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe one of the heroes of this forum (although why that should be, I'm not sure), John Bolton.

http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/internationalnews/in020101.htm

And again, my comments have been directed to what the Constitution actually permits. If the Government exceeds its authority in the area of treaty law, it is not because it is Constitutional. Treaties do not have equal footing with the Constitution. If they are treated as such, it is not because the Constitution permits it, which was my point in the first place. None of what you cite changes that fact.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Well, the whole article is sort of ridiculous. It quotes only attorneys from the losing side of the argument, as if they were going to slap their heads and say "oh, of course - we realize now our arguments have no basis in the Constitution...how silly we were!" That would be like asking Saddam's attorney Ramsay Clark if he thinks Saddam would get a fair trial.

[Carry_Okie]

Your understanding of treaty law is not in conformance with reality.

Your understanding of how treaty law is used by the environmental left is not in conformance to reality.

And again, my comments have been directed to what the Constitution actually permits.

Then you can come out of your dream world and confront the bulk of regulations in the Federal Register.

Treaties do not have equal footing with the Constitution.

Effectively, they do. They shouldn't, and certainly the logic of the Constitution doesn't permit it, but the practical reality is otherwise.

If they are treated as such, it is not because the Constitution permits it, which was my point in the first place.

That was my point, so we agree there.