Yes, the law can say whatever it wants, constitutional or not, until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and in this case the Constitution is not explicit and the law has not been overruled.
U.S. "all rights, power and authority within the Zone...which the U.S would possess and exercise as if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said land and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise of the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority The treaty was amended in 1936 and in 1955, but the sover eignty and perpetuity clauses have not been disturbed This treaty incorporated the Hay-Herran treaty but also It contained a sovereignty clause which granted the Further, in addition to acquiring the Zone by treaty, the United States paid Panama $10 million as "price or compensation plus $250,000 annuity raised first to $430,000 and currently at $2,328,000 2 Private claims were bought at fair market value (set by a U.S.-Panama Joint Commission 1~ transisthmanian railroad had beenconstructed by private American inter ests during 1850-18
I never made a statement as to the claim for or against mccain, the above is the operating clause of the treaty for the property?? Seems to me no more than a rental contract. See http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/bg-31.cfm