U.S. Constitution - Null & Void by UN Treaty?

[Dennis]

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2 consists of three paragraphs.
The first sentence of the second paragraph gives the President
several powers. Here is an excerpt of the first sentence:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur ...”

U.S. Constitution, Article VI consists of three paragraphs. The
following is the second paragraph (bold added for stress):

“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.”
-----

Therefore, as I understand it, the President and 2/3 of our Senators
can subordinate us to the United Nations or anyone else at their
whim. The President and 66 Senators can revoke and repeal ANY
portion of our Constitution at will.

Think about this as you continue to vote for members of the current elitist oligarchy.

 

[ahenry]

WONDERFUL QUESTION! Maybe we can get some actual experts to respond but until then I will throw in my two cents.

I have always wanted to know for sure about this, but I have heard from several people that I respect that indeed a Treaty supercedes the Constitution. I have always wondered how the Founding Fathers after showing so much wisdom in everything else create a provision for something to be a higher law than the very document the risked their lives to make. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Are there any Constitutional law experts out there? Maybe just some law experts even?

 

[Dennis]

ahenry,

I'm not an Attorney either, but the wording (above) seems difficult to contradict. I would be very happy to learn 67 people can not void our Constitution.
-----

All,

Is my accusation of an “elitist oligarchy” an extremism?

- Consider Senators Bradley (a Democrat) and McCain (a Republican)
exchanging campaign funds during the last primary elections. These
two were helping each other when they are supposed to be in “loyal
opposition.” Is there a difference in the goals of the two major
parties? Or do their differences include only methods and time
frames? Do Republicans (such as McCain) support gun control? Do
Democrats support gun control? Have our two parties become more
loyal to each other than to the American people?


- Consider elitism. Remember when our leaders used to be role
models for our children? I just received this info by e-mail...
“Jessie Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat Congressman
Mel Reynolds to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was
among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton's last-minute
forgiveness spree.

Reynolds got a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal
sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud & lies to the
Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious, however, for
concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage
campaign volunteer.

This is a first in American politics: An ex-Congressman who had sex
with a subordinate won clemency from a President who had sex with
a subordinate, then was hired by a Clergyman who had sex with a
subordinate.”

Apparently statutory rape is not serious - *IF* you are a
member of our government. Is this equal justice under the law?
Would one of us be pardoned by the President or would we be listed
on the internet for the rest of our lives as a sex offender? Is any one
of these three adulterers a role model for our children? If they can
not be true to their own marriages, can we expect them to be true to
their leadership positions?

The elitists truly believe they are better than “We, the People...” The
Republicans and Democrats have become a club, or a society, closely
allied with each other to ensure and to increase their power and
wealth while reducing us to mere grist for the egomaniacal mill they
have created to rule us - economically, morally, financially, in our
business dealings and in our personal lives. Is it any wonder they
have come to believe they should control what we may possess in our
own homes?

The only Amendment not violated repeatedly involves stationing
government troops in our homes. How lucky we are they come there
only temporarily for “search and destroy” training.

It’s time for a change.

It’s time to elect Americans to Congress.

Now, where can we find them?

 

[Dave R]

Dennis, you have raised a sad question. Where do we find them?

I'm deeply afraid that our current system has evolved into one that repels people of integrity, and invites people who belive that "whatever you can get away with is right and just".

I know very few folk in our Federal Government who I would consider men or women of integrity. My Senator, Larry Craig, is one. Says what he means, means what he says.

I know a few more in our State Legislature.

But most of our State Legislature, and most of our US House & Senate, have poor regard for the truth and the rule of law.

I think our best hope is to elect people of integrity at the local level, where our vote has the most power, and then work upstream.

 

[madison46]

Dennis,

The Constitution, all laws, AND any approved treaties are the supreme law of the land. It doesn't say that any particular one is supreme over the other.

Someone explained to me once that the Constitution would overrule any treaty. I'll try to get in touch with that person and get his explanation again.

madison

 

[Wallew]

Even the NRA has finally realized the UN is not a nice organization. Expect them to pass a treaty this summer that will BAN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of all firearms. Will the current 50/50 Senate accept this treaty?. Probably not, but the treaty will sit, unpassed until the NEXT DEMOCRATICALLY controlled senate will pass it, as long as they have a Democrat or Republican in office that will sign the treaty, thereby overturning the Second Amendment WITHOUT making any changes to the Constitution.

We will all whine, moan and complain, and then line up to give our firearms up. And once this treaty is signed, consider it the balloon going up on the rest of your freedoms. It will signal the beginning of the 2nd American Revolution. We ditched European control of this country over two hundred years ago and they have been trying to regain that control ever since. Are we just going to roll over and give it to them without the fight we gave them last time??

Go read the NRA's America's 1st Freedom magazine this month, the cover article is EXACTLY what I have listed above.

Hey Rich, remember what I said? One little step at a time.

 

[4V50 Gary]

In the arena of foreign policy, the President, in the spirit of cooperation, can certainly allow himself to be influenced by the UN. However, where domestic affairs are concerned, he must abide by the Constitution and the Court.

 

[RHC]

Treaties do not supercede the Constitution.

The Constitution provides that they are "the supreme law of the land." That has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give treaties the same status as federal law, not as the constitution.

Treaties are made under powers delegated to the President and Congress by the Constitution, and such powers cannot overrule the Constitution itself.

I gave citations to Supreme Court cases on this a while back, and I don't feel like typing them all in again. Use the search feature if you want citations.

 

[Dennis]

PC or not,

I shall pray you folks are correct in saying the Constitution is supreme over treaties.

Hmmm. The Supreme Court could then rule that a treaty is unconstitutional???

All that is logical, but (given our government and the last eight years, no, make that FIFTY years) I have no faith that our government will control itself for our benefit.

I do, however, know the rules I will live and die by.
-----

Can anyone find a relevant precedent either way?

 

[TheBluesMan]

Here you go... And it ain't pretty:

This is called the "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution. It basically states that the Constitution, Federal Statutes and Treaties take precedence over any State Constitution or Statutes, and that Treaties take precedent over even the Constitution. This finding of Supremacy was upheld in the Supreme Court case WARE v. HYLTON, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) which stated, "But here is a treaty, the supreme law, which overrules all State laws upon the subject, to all intents and purposes;" This supports the case that of the three, (Constitution, Federal Statutes, Treaties) Treaties take precedence over all state laws.

Another illustration of the "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution which shows that treaties take precedence over State Statutes is found in the Migratory Bird Case, in which the Supreme Court held in Missouri v. Holland (1920), 252 U. S. 416(1920) that, when we made a treaty in 1916 with Great Britain for the protection of birds flying between the United States and Canada, the States had no regulatory power. (Currently looking for more info on this...)

Here’s a quote from Barefoot’s World. You can find it here.

When the supervisory power was given to Congress by a treaty, the treaty and the act to carry it out became the supreme law of the land. Of the three elements entering into what the Constitution declares to be the "supreme law of the land", namely, "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", the treaty is second to no other. The laws of Congress are not the supreme law of the land unless they "shall be made in pursuance thereof" -- of the Constitution. But the treaty is the supreme law of the land when made "under the authority of the United States" -- that is, when negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate. The people having expressed their National will in a treaty, the will of a State respecting the subject must conform to the superior will.

Yes, Dennis, it is true. 67 people can void the Constitution!

Gary is correct in his statement that basically the only safeguard to this happening is that all of these 67 people have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and are therefore obliged to not enter into any treaties which would void the same.

That’s it. An oath (that is regularly broken, by the way) is all that stands between the Constitution being supreme law of the land, and just another old piece of paper.

 

[GnL]

While I don't have time to elaborate at the moment, this case is pertinent to your debate:

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

Read section II of this opinion and see if you still think that a treaty can operate in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Dennis]

RHC posted on: 12-20-2000 at 09:10 AM:
(Quote)
Matt Vd@ and others:

Treaties are made by the President and Congress under their
executive and legislative powers, and so are subject to constitutional
restraints. This is basic constitutional analysis, so commonly
understood that there are not in fact that many cases on it, but here
are two of the leading ones:

Foster v. Neilson, U.S.Sup.Ct., 1829, a treaty must "be regarded in
courts...as equivalent to an act of the legislature" page 254

Reid v. Covert, U.S. Sup. Ct., (1957), No treaty "can confer power on
the Government, which is free from the restraints of the
Constitution." page 16
(End quote)

 

[bookkie]

My understanding is that here is the order in which laws are applied:

1. U.S. Constitution
2. Federal laws & Treaties
3. State Constitutions
4. State laws & regulations

Thus a treatie can over ride state constitutions and can federal & state laws, but can never over ride the federal constitution.

 

[LawDog]

Here y'all go:

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

Read this page carefully, then read it again.

LawDog

 

[TheBluesMan]

I think you're right, Richard.

Reading more of Missouri v. Holland seems to uphold your statement.

JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court in State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)

It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.

<snip>

Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. We do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power, but they must be ascertained in a different way. It is obvious that there may be matters of the sharpest exigency for the national wellbeing (sic) that an act of Congress could not deal with, but that a treaty followed by such an act could, and it is not lightly to be assumed that, in matters requiring national action, "a power which must belong to and somewhere reside in every civilized government" is not to be found

<snip>

The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution.

Aparently this case only proves that treaties are a higher law than state laws. Further, the opinion of the court implies that no treaty can be valid if it infringes (there’s that word again) on the words of the Constitution. That’s good news to me. Looking forward to reading more about Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) and LawDog's link...

 

[Dennis]

And y'all are too quick fer me!!

In the Reid v. Covert case, it was an executive agreement (not a
treaty) between the United States and Great Britain that was in
question. However, in Part II, we find:
“MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and
delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join.”

Significant excerpts include:
“At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement
was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which
permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American
servicemen or their dependents.”

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who
created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for
the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history
and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States
to exercise power under an international agreement without
observing constitutional prohibitions. ... In effect, such construction
would permit amendment of that document in a manner not
sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and
they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the
Senate combined.”

“There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court
has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
Constitution over a treaty. ... For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
U.S. 258, 267, it declared: The treaty power, as expressed in the
Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which
are found in that instrument against the action of the government or
of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the
government itself and of that of the States. It would not be
contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution
forbids, or a change in the character of the [p*18] government, or in
that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory
of the latter, without its consent.”

“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of
Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity
with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is
inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders
the treaty null. ... It would be completely anomalous to say that a
treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an
agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that
instrument.”
(End of excerpts)

Okay. One more hearty swallow and I’ll put away the Mylanta, Pepto,
and Tums.

Thanks to RHC (who is an attorney) and to GnL (who is a law
student), and to all the others who found the Constitution remains our ruling document. (A triumph of logic, it is!)

Now, if we can just restore Constitutional Law........
-----

Faith! ‘N would ya please put more than a mere wee dram in me
Irish coffee today, dear!



[Edited by Dennis on 03-27-2001 at 03:43 PM]

 

[Dennis]

And once again I marvel, I do...

at what a bunch of "ignorant, redneck gun owners" can find and resolve in a few hours.

So long as we work together, lads!

Unite!
-----

Prayers again answered by the foresight of our Founding Fathers. They never could have imagined our modern times, but, my oh my, how they understood human nature.

What a bunch they must have been....

 

[TheBluesMan]

Hmm... I do believe that I must hereby recant my statements as posted previoulsly. And I'm happy to do so, too!

An email to "Barefoot Bob" may be in order as well...

 

[Scott Conklin]

And now I'll throw a little gas on the smoldering coals: Keep in mind that although a UN Treaty MAY not supercede the Constitution the facts are the Constitution really isn't worth the paper it is written on today.

Most laws, regulations, and government programs at all levels have NO foundation in the Constitution. But they exist because corrupt or incompetent Feds put them in place. And ignorant American "Citizens" accept them, use them, and obey them without any concern for the Constition.

IF the UN were to create such a treaty and the Senate were to ratify it I assure you it will have force of law. And in this day and age anyone who would presume to stand up and brand it for what it is; uncontitutional, will in turn be branded an Extremist, redneck, gun nut, militia type, paranoid, etc.

In Washington they do what they want without regard for the peons. And who among us will do anything to stop them? We certainly haven't so far...

 

[Waitone]

The current debate in the senate over McCain's campaign finance reform legislation is a crystal clear, unambigious example of the problem. Curbing political speech is a violation of the free speech provision of the first amendment; yet senators of both parties are barreling down the road toward violation of the first amendment. Democrats because they want to divert attention from the massive lawlessness of the past president. McCain because his lock washers are worn out. Spinelessrepubllicans vote for it because they want to vaccinate themselves against the democrats nasty words in the next election and because they actually believe 1)the house will not pass it, 2) Bush will not sign it, 3)SCOUS will strike it down. So it is really convenient to look good when the spinelessrepublicans can pass the buck to someone else to stand in the breech against tyranny.

Trent Lott has got to go! That man needs to coach cheerleaders in Tobacci'Chaw, MS. He does not need to lead the senate.