OT: Treaty outweighs Constitution?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I know it's definitely OT, but thought I could sneak in the question before it gets busy.

Does anyone remember a thread, in the last few days, were someone made reference to the US Constitution being overstepped by a world treaty?

Thanks in advance.

-- Trish (adler2@webtv.net), February 14, 2000

Answers

Don't recall it, but I do hate the fact that many of those trade agreements violate sovereign law--if not ours than the laws of other nations. Very weird and wrongheaded. Like citizens vote for representatives who create their laws, which are declared illegal by a trade agreement that advantages business entities? What say?

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), February 14, 2000.

They are trying. The following is a link to a website with some research on the issue. http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/treaty1.html

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), February 14, 2000.

Mara, you have it right! We now live in a fiefdom of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. No doubt about it any longer, but the question remaining is whether it's possible to reverse it?

-- Ben Corson (bcorson@dmi.net), February 14, 2000.

It is high Time to regulate and Tax these international Corporate Criminals.You run Cruise Ships out of our Harbors,with US Tourists You obey our Laws and pay US Taxes.You build Cars in Detroit,You don't incorporate in Delaware.US owned and operated Ships have no Business being "registered"in Panama or Liberia.These Tax Evasion Tactics have to come to a screeching halt.It is Time to proctect our own People,not import Millions of breeding Slave Labor for the Enrichment of a few.A Nation,terrorised by Greed,Trickery and Deceit will surely suffer the Consequences.

-- Valentine (Keep@it.up), February 14, 2000.

Trish-

I vaguely remember the Constitution/treaty reference.Seems like it was in a reply.Think it has scrolled off the bottom of threads.You might ask Ashton and Leska in an Email,think they were keeping everything archived on disk in order to be able to do a text search.

-- Sam (Wtrmkr52@aol.com), February 14, 2000.



Trish, this a very critical question that has not received any public debate from Congress, the Executive Branch, etc. I remember the debate a few years ago over the U.N. Rights of the Child where a treaty must be in concert with the Constitution otherwise it's null and void. Our problem is that we have way too many Congressmen that are wimpy, compromised, or just plain too gutless to bring these issues public. One possible exception is Ron Paul of Tx. who is very patriotic, anti-NWO, and a real populist.

-- saveamerica (jb40@hotmail.net), February 14, 2000.

I wrote the reply.

A treaty supercedes the Constitution so that other nations can trust it to be law.Us too.A treaty is an agreement between at least two nations and can recognize no other law.

The population never,or hardly ever learns of the content of a treaty because they just aren't interested. So Congress or the Pres. will do as they please. You should search out the treaty that Jimmy Carter signed tying us to the U.N.and World Government.You will then have a new subject to discuss.

It truly is too late.The treaties have been signed.the government is in the process of gradually breaking us in on the new rule.

The one thing causing them to choke is the gun. When you see it go it is all over.

I am so sorry...................jim

-- It's True! (Reply@treaty.Constitution), February 14, 2000.


In 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert observed that the Court has "regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution [U.S.] over a treaty."

A treaty does not outweigh the Constitution. The source of "sovereignty" in the United States is the People. The President has only those powers delegated to him by the People through the Constitution. A treaty that bears on domestic matters requires implementing legislation from Congress. The status of that legislation is the same as any other and may be rescinded or superceded by supplemental legislation. A State should honorably pass its own implementing legislation for matters within its jurisdiction. However, the U.S. Supreme Court will deem any State legislation contrary to the provisions of a treaty as nullified or interpreted in harmony with the treaty.

Provisions of a treaty contray to the Constitution are void. (The Constitution is an authorizing document for the delegation of power from the sovereign People. An act by the agent contrary to or in enlargement of his authority would be void.)

As stated by Justice McLean in Mayor, Aldermen and Inhabitants of New Orleans v. U.S., 35 U.S. 662 (1836):

"The government of the United States, as was well observed in the argument, is one of limited powers. It can exercise authority over no subjects, except those which have been delegated to it. Congress cannot, by legislation, enlarge the federal jurisdiction, nor can it be enlarged under the treaty-making power."

..."It is very clear, that as the treaty cannot give this power to the federal government, we must look for it in the constitution; and that the same power must authorize a similar exercise of jurisdiction over every other quay in the United States. A statement of the case is a sufficient refutation of the argument."

Treaties were never intended to bear on purely domestic matters. They were meant to settle the rights of traveling, trading or resident non-citizens between countries. They were meant to deal with matters entirely external to the United States.

As stated by Justice Daniel in the License Cases, 46 U.S. 504 (1847):

"Laws of the United States, in order to be binding, must be within the legitimate powers vested by the constitution. Treaties, to be valid, must be made within the scope of the same powers; for there can be no 'authority of the United States,' save what is derived mediately or immediately, and regularly and legitimately, from the constitution. A treaty, no more than an ordinary statute, can arbitrarily cede away any one right of a State or of any citizen of a State...."

http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/treaty1.html

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), February 15, 2000.


Y'all just give me a short time on this. I have to pick a few examples out of three treaties to show how it really works.I spent two years trying to dissect the one Carter signed. The one to limit greenhouse gases is a direct assault on the soverignty of this nation.(I definitely am not against limiting pollution.) And if you don't believe that the World Trade Agreement affects you as an individual you should really check again. On the first url scroll way down to 134 Treaties as law. The last one is a reminder of what your really is. http://www.usembassy.no/policy/humrig1.htm http://www.uswa.org/news/naftainfo.html http://www.unfccc.de/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1998/AMR/25105898.htm http://www.svpvril.com/meador_it.html

-- I'm Sorry (Treaty@Law.com), February 15, 2000.

The missing word is government.As for the rest....I'm virtually blind and can't spell or type.And new at this.

-- Trashed Constitution (Freedom@hope.com), February 15, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ