Posted on 07/30/2006 2:51:32 PM PDT by yoe
The November election should harbor no ‘avowed’ environmentalists, animal rights people, or meddlesome people who want to control your life. Vote the Party of Common Sense – GOP businessmen and women who are not easily swayed by special interests and who understand economics and the need for a strong military.
The GOP is not part of the solution.
All the more reason for the American militia to remain fully armed.
Henry Lamb nails another one.
BumPing.
didn't Kyoto need to be ratified by the Senate?
Politicians need to come clean with the American public - that's who they are responsible to. If they want to cede their authority to unelected foreigners, the only thing to do is at least inform the citizenry of their aims.
Sounds scary! The only problem is, treaties don't trump the Constitution.
Treaties do not trump the Constitution; treaties become a part of the constitution.
So if a treaty were made that legalized slavery it would be Constitutional? That's funny!
''Article VI
[2] 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.''
Thus, the provisions of any ratified treaties become co-equal with the Constitution, but not part of it. The nasty bit here is that the provisions of ratified treaties are immune to alteration, supplantation, or cancellation by either the formal amendment process or declaration from a Constitutional convention.
Now, of course, there is no possible way that the Framers intended this result; all they intended by this section (as the Federalist Papers bear out very clearly) is for the several states to be unable to override or interfere with any provisions of a treaty ratified by the United States.
It has never yet been ruled upon, to my knowledge, what happens if a provision of a ratified treaty directly contradicts one or another portion of the Constitution. This question will surely arise shortly, given all these half-assed treaties that have, unfortunately, been ratified by the assorted vermin in the Senate. No bets on whether the Supremes will be able to cobble together a majority to support the clear Constitutional intent of the Framers.
The successful argument against would have to be something along the lines of: ''Is it the Court's considered opinion that, for example, James Madison would have countenanced for a microsecond the delegation of control over any part of the sovereign territory of the United States to a group of people dedicated to the very destruction of the United States, _____ (fill in your favourite such group)??''
And we'll be reduced to hoping that the Supremes answer ''No.'' Yet one more example, of many, why ONLY originalists are to be allowed onto the Supreme Court.
The big problems with environment regulations aren't due to treaties -- although treaties certainly can be terrible.
The REAL problem is that at least since the days of the New Deal, the federal courts have allowed expansive interpretations of the Constitution's "commerce clause."
And remember that it only takes 51% majority votes in Congress to pass wacky environmental laws that are "justified" as regulations upon interstate commerce.
So if the environmental wackos have a nutty environmental idea that commands 51% of the votes in the House and Senate, plus acquiescence by POTUS, why would they ever want to wait for a treaty -- which would always face the much higher obstacle of a 2/3 Senate vote?
From the text there are three things specified as being the "supreme Law of the Land"
1. This Constitution
2. the Laws of the United States
3. all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States
"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"
From the wording, it sounds like a treaty is not constrained by the Constitution, which seems a bit bizarre to me. Perhaps se need an Amendment to correct this.
At least treaties have to be ratified by Congress, not just signed by the President I think.
I still hold that any treaty that violates the bill of rights is un-ratifiable, and thus any ratification of such a treaty is moot. Unfortunately, I have little or no faith in present courts to make a correct ruling.
I agree with you on the treaties. The courts should rightly rule that the constitution trumps any treaty. The law of the land is our constitution, not treaties, regardless of any twisting done by politicians and left wing judges.
Treaty law was Patrick Henry's "rat" in the original Constitution. For bald-faced smoke and mirrors treatment of the manner in which they are ratified (of which your posts are but a shallow imitation), Hamilton's Federalist 75 really takes the cake.
Not one treaty has EVER been declared unconstitutional, despite the fact that some are physically impossible to satisfy, not to mention outrageously far beyond the scope of the Constitution.
Need an example?
"The Governments of the American Republics, wishing to protect and preserve in their natural habitat representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough to assure them from becoming extinct through any agency within man's control;"After going on at considerable length about wilderness areas and national parks, they come back with this language in Article V Section 1:
"The Contracting Governments agree to adopt, or to propose such adoption to their respective appropriate law-making bodies, suitable laws and regulations for the protection and preservation of flora and fauna within their national boundaries but not included in the national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, or strict wilderness reserves referred to in Article II hereof."All species, all land, no limits to the commitment. Ratification of a treaty with this scope exceeds the constitutional authority of the government of the United States. It is a betrayal of its citizens and their land. It can't work either.
This treaty is contrary to natural law.
Nature is a dynamic, adaptive, and competitive system. Under changing conditions, some species go extinct, indeed, for natural selection to operate, they must. The problem arises because human agency and influence is so pervasive that one can always conclude that a threatened species loss is within man's control. When humans ask, "Which ones lose?" the treaty specifies, "None," and demands no limit to the commitment to save them all. This of course destroys the ability to act as agent to save anything, much less objectively evaluate how best to do the best that can be done.
The demand of this treaty is a mutually exclusive logic. It cannot be satisfied.
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 notwithstanding.
With regard to the last phrase, it isn't clear whether it means the Constitution of the US or the respective Constitutions of the several States. My guess is that it is the latter, but if it is not, then we run into problems with the commas in the phrase empowering treaties. To make the ambiguity clear, I will rewrite it two ways.
If one removes the first comma, it reads:
"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...."
To which any sane person would agree. Treaties adopted lacking Constitutional authority should be void. Now lets look at it the other way:
"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land...."
This reading of the clause limits enforcement of the treaty to the the powers authorized to the United States by the Constitution, which, as long as the final phrase in the clause is missing is fine too. HOWEVER, If one takes the second reading and states that the first comma is the governing attribute it reads like this:
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 notwithstanding.
Where we could get all wrapped up wondering which Constitution(s) they were talking about. One then wonders if that also trumps secession.
Note the emphasis on Judges and using the Judiciary to resolve any conflicts. I sometimes wonder if this wasn't a deliberate time bomb. I hate that first comma after the word "made." If I had the power to amend the Constitution, that would be one of the changes I would make (another would require ratification by two thirds of the full Senate as opposed to two thirds of "Senators present," which, considering how many treaties, including the Convention on Nature Protection, have been ratified fraudulently, is a most interesting thread of history).
The remainder of the Constitution is entirely clear that its purpose is to secure unalienable rights. The problem is that the last phrase of Article VI Clause 2 could be interpreted to trump the rest as long as one thinks that the Constitution could include a clause that trumps itself. My guess is that it was demanded by our creditors, those loving European nations that defined what constituted nationhood in order to loan us that money Mr. Hamilton wanted so desperately.
The proper term is "Outlaw".
Time for some enterprising law student to find some odious clause of some obscure treaty and use it against the federal government. Probably some indian treaty from the 19th century should contain something like that.
The Authority of the United States devolves from the Constitution and its Amendments. Any Treaty that violates any provision of that Authority is void. See tag line.
I'm frankly puzzeled. Our Constitution is the law of the land, therefore the "Authority of the United States". Any treaty that exceeds the authority granted by the Constitution cannot be ratified as it is illegal from inception.
Can this actually be interpreted any other way?
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.
