Replies

The treaty, in and of itself, did not supersede the Constitution.

Pure word-play. To abide by the agreement requires that the government exceed its Constitutional authority. In the ESA, it did.

My dispute with the article is whether, when the Constitution says that a treaty becomes the "supremem law of the land", that was understood to mean that it had equal weight with the Constitution. It clearly does not.

It doesn't have to say that. Pursuant to the law of nations, a government can surrender unconditionally by treaty, which obviously exceeds the authority granted to the United States in the Constitution. That was one of the reasons European royalty insisted upon a new governing document OTHER than the Articles of Confederation before they would loan the United States any money after the Revolutionary War.

What you are confronting is, in my opinion, the resulting trojan horse planted in the Constitution. What is worse is the ratification provision in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2; the detractors of which were disposed with one glorious handwave from Hamilton in Federalist 75:

The only objection which remains to be canvassed, is that which would substitute the proportion of two thirds of all the members composing the senatorial body, to that of two thirds of the members PRESENT. It has been shown, under the second head of our inquiries, that all provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its resolutions, have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government, and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority. This consideration seems sufficient to determine our opinion, that the convention have gone as far in the endeavor to secure the advantage of numbers in the formation of treaties as could have been reconciled either with the activity of the public councils or with a reasonable regard to the major sense of the community. If two thirds of the whole number of members had been required, it would, in many cases, from the non-attendance of a part, amount in practice to a necessity of unanimity. And the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder. Proofs of this position might be adduced from the examples of the Roman Tribuneship, the Polish Diet, and the States-General of the Netherlands, did not an example at home render foreign precedents unnecessary.

The Convention on Nature Protection was ratified with no recorded vote, no record of a quorum, no record of debate, and no record of a committee hearing. Supreme Law of the Land. That's how dirty it gets, my son. FReeper sauropod found that information at my direction in the Library of Congress.

Treaties have the same weight as any piece of Congressional legislation.

Nonsense. The implementing legislation is written pursuant to the treaty as a means of compliance. If the scope of that legislation is insufficient to the terms of the treaty, the United States can be sued in Federal Court, which is routinely the case. That is how we got subspecies protection without specific authorization in the ESA.

What you are talking about is how it should work; not how it does work.

It was the implementing legislation that Congress subsequently passed that put the treaty provisions in conflict with Constitutional authority.

IMHO, a handy dodge.

Whether or not the treaty is against natural law is not relevant to whether it supercedes the Constitution.

True, however, that it exceeds Natural Law is proof that it exceeds the scope of powers granted to the government of the United States. Something to do with an illegal contract... ;-)

The point made in the article that I was commenting on was trying to claim that the Geneva Conventions had greater authority than the U.S. Constitution, simply because we ratified it. It doesn't.

By itself, no, subsequent to the lawsuit... Now you know one reason why legal thugs like the Center for Biodiversity are rolling in money.

They also fail to mention that the Geneva conventions only apply to soldiers wearing uniforms of the countries to whose army they belong. The Conventions did not extend to terrorists at the time of their ratification and have not been amended to do so.

On this you are absolutely correct, which is all you really had to say to gainsay the stupidity within the article above.