Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?

By Publius Huldah.

If the U.S. Senate ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?   If the Senate ratifies the “cap and trade” climate change treaty, will that become part of the supreme Law of the Land?

We hear it said that whenever the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme Law of the Land”.  But is that True?  Not necessarily!  Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.

You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution?

1.  Does the federal government have authority to make treaties?  Can treaties be about any object? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?

Article II, §2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says the President:

… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…

Article VI, cl. 2 says:

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. [emphasis added]

Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties.  Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.

2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of texts) 1 that one must give effect to every word and phrase.  The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.

So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.

3.  From where do the President and the Senate get Authority to act?  From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President and Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on an object before any Treaty made by them on that object qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”.  If the Constitution does not authorize the President and Congress to act on an object, the Treaty is not “Law” – it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such. (Federalist Paper No. 33, last para).

Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law (Federalist No. 78, 11th & 12th paras), it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all Presidential Acts, all Acts of Congress, all Treaties, and all Judicial Decisions is measured (Federalist No. 78, 10th para).

4.  In Federalist No. 44 (7th para from end), James Madison explains why it is necessary that Art. VI, cl. 2, provide that federal treaties have supremacy over State Constitutions.  Otherwise, a treaty which violates a State Constitution would have no effect in that State:

…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added]

Madison thus illustrates the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect.  I found no other discussion in The Federalist Papers on this point.

So, let us turn to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: 2

In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]

Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]

According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]

5. So!  The treaty making power of the United States is very limited. What, then, are the proper objects of treaties?  To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President and the Congress to do.  The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations … and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, § 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, § 8, cl. 11).  The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, §2, cl. 2).

The authors of The Federalist Papers address the treaty making power of the United States.  John Jay says treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd & 6th paras).  Madison says treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors & consuls and to commerce (Federalist No. 42, 1st four paras).

There may be additional objects of the treaty making power authorized in The Constitution.  For example, Art I, § 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries“.  Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents & copyrights. 3

6. Let’s look now at the proposed U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.  If ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?

To answer that Question, we must ask:  Does the Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting “children”?  Does the Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over “children”?

The answer to both questions is “NO!”  In addition, the 10th Amendment says if a power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited to the States by Art. I, §10, it is reserved to the States or the people.  Thus, jurisdiction over “children” is reserved to the States or the People!  Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States.  It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such.

If the Senate were to ratify the cap-and-trade “climate” treaty, which, among other things, would force energy companies to buy allowances or permits for their “carbon emissions”, would it become part of “the supreme law of the Land”?  You are now equipped to find the answer, and you can confidently defend it!

Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties.  It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.

7.  Finally, Thomas Jefferson points to a legislative remedy if the President and the Senate ignore the constitutional limits on the treaty making power of the United States. Thomas Jefferson says: 2

We conceive the constitutional doctrine to be, that though the President and Senate have the general power of making treaties, yet wherever they include in a treaty matters confided by the Constitution to the three [did he mean, "two"?] branches of Legislature, an act of legislation will be requisite to confirm these articles, and that the House of Representatives, as one branch of the Legislature, are perfectly free to pass the act or to refuse it, governing themselves by their own judgment whether it is for the good of their constituents to let the treaty go into effect or not. –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1796. ME 9:329 [emphasis added]

I was glad… to hear it admitted on all hands, that laws of the United States, subsequent to a treaty, control its operation, and that the Legislature is the only power which can control a treaty. Both points are sound beyond doubt.–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1798. ME 10:41

What a man! And our system of checks & balances is an elegant one, indeed!

8.  Folks!  For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say.  Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme Law of the Land!”  And not only do we believe it, we repeat it to others.  And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network.  In order to restore our Constitutional Republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover how to think and analyze. And then, we must boldly say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!” PH

Endnotes:

1 Educators no longer teach “rules of construction”, because it has become the dogma of our time that texts have no “objective meaning” to be discovered.  Instead, each person is to come up with his own “understanding” – and one person’s “understanding” is as good as another’s.  A friend recalls the following incident which occurred in his high school English class during 1960:  The class read a short story, and then the teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him.  Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher.  But when it was my friend’s turn, he said:  “It doesn’t matter what it means to me – what matters is what the author meant.”  The teacher was not pleased with this ‘out of place’ comment.  Is it any wonder many judges feel free to “understand” the Constitution any way they please?  They were conditioned in school to “think” this way; and they did not resist the conditioning.

2 I originally obtained these Jefferson quotes from the University of Virginia webpage on Thomas Jefferson.  However, they have since reorganized their Jefferson pages, and I can no longer find the quotes there. I will have to find these quotes somewhere else.

3 It has been said that Charles Dickens’ works were pirated, printed and sold in these United States without paying any royalties to Dickens!  A copyright treaty with Great Britain would have discouraged this theft of Dickens’ intellectual property. PH

September 18, 2009; revised July 11, 2012.

 

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

September 19, 2009 - Posted by | Climate Change Treaty, Treaty Making Powers of the United States, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child | ,

39 Comments »

  1. […] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/ […]

    Pingback by The Truth About Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws - | September 28, 2014 | Reply

  2. […] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/ […]

    Pingback by The Truth About Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws - Sons of Liberty Media | September 25, 2014 | Reply

  3. god save us . So glad to have found your site. So now to start my reading and to find out what my school did not teach.

    Comment by William c. Medlock | January 7, 2014 | Reply

    • Well, I am glad too! Heartfelt welcome!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2014 | Reply

  4. […] Here’s a great article explaining this: Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”? […]

    Pingback by Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution | How A Conservative Thinks | October 31, 2013 | Reply

  5. […] the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See this article. But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic. […]

    Pingback by Interesting LAW that President and Congress ignore. | August 21, 2013 | Reply

  6. […] Congress may lawfully ratify only treaties which address enumerated powers. Since “parental rights” & “children” are not enumerated powers, any ratified treaty […]

    Pingback by Publius Huldah: Parental Rights - God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable? | USA NEWS FIRST | July 30, 2013 | Reply

  7. […] Congress may lawfully ratify only treaties which address enumerated powers. Since “parental rights” & “children” are not enumerated powers, any ratified treaty […]

    Pingback by Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable? « Publius-Huldah's Blog | July 28, 2013 | Reply

  8. [...] Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”? [...]

    Pingback by TX AG Greg Abbott on Megyn Kelly discussing the UN Arms Trade Treaty | How A Conservative Thinks | April 3, 2013 | Reply

  9. Reblogged this on Abortion and Population Reduction: The Long View.

    Comment by lazarus5712 | April 2, 2013 | Reply

  10. [...] Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”? [...]

    Pingback by UN Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Focus Is Transfer, Registry of Firearms | How A Conservative Thinks | March 21, 2013 | Reply

  11. [...] a Treaty also has to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and even more than that, a Treaty MUST be Constitutional as well. A Treaty CAN NOT ban the 2nd amendment even if it’s ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and signed [...]

    Pingback by BREAKING: Weapons Ban Shot Down, Obama Sends Kerry To U.N. To Pass International Gun Ban | How A Conservative Thinks | March 20, 2013 | Reply

  12. [...] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See,http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/ [...]

    Pingback by The Truth About Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto Laws « Bobusnr | February 6, 2013 | Reply

  13. [...] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/ [...]

    Pingback by The Truth About Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws - The Lone Star Watchdog | The Lone Star Watchdog | January 29, 2013 | Reply

  14. [...] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See this article. [...]

    Pingback by GUN CONTROL, THE DICK ACT OF 1902, BILLS OF ATTAINDER AND EX POST FACTO LAWS | January 28, 2013 | Reply

  15. [...] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/ [...]

    Pingback by The Truth About Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws | _ | January 28, 2013 | Reply

  16. [...] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly.   Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty.   See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/ [...]

    Pingback by Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws | | January 21, 2013 | Reply

  17. [...] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly.   Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty.   See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/ [...]

    Pingback by Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws | The Constitution Sentinel | January 20, 2013 | Reply

  18. [...] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly.   Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty.   See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/ [...]

    Pingback by Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws « Publius-Huldah's Blog | January 19, 2013 | Reply

  19. [...] the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See this article. But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic. And [...]

    Pingback by Publius Huldah: GUN CONTROL, DICK ACT OF 1902, BILLS OF ATTAINDER & EX POST FACTO - ALIPAC | January 19, 2013 | Reply

  20. [...] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See this article. [...]

    Pingback by Gun Control: All you need to know……. | Grumpy Opinions | January 18, 2013 | Reply

  21. [...] In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly.   Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty.   See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/ [...]

    Pingback by Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws | American Conservative News Politics & Opinion - The Land of the Free | January 18, 2013 | Reply

  22. [...] treaties.  It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution…Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?  by Publius Huldah, a retired Constitutional Lawyer in Middle Tn. , a friend of mine I might add, [...]

    Pingback by UN Gun Grab on Pace for March Signing of UN Small Arms Treaty « How A Conservative Thinks | January 17, 2013 | Reply

  23. [...] [...]

    Pingback by Gun Control: Leads to More Violence « How A Conservative Thinks | December 19, 2012 | Reply

  24. [...] Land” under the Constitution. Remember this one thing, if you remember nothing else….Treaties MUST also be Constitutional before they become “Supreme Law of the Land”. So you can’t ban the 2nd amendment [...]

    Pingback by Hours After Obama Victory – Administration Backs UN Arms Treaty « How A Conservative Thinks | November 7, 2012 | Reply

  25. [...] It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word [...]

    Pingback by “CLIMATE CHANGE” TREATY: The Supreme Law Of The Land? Or Lawless Usurpation? « Publius-Huldah's Blog | July 11, 2012 | Reply

  26. OUTSTANDING!!! Succinct explanation of Constitutional law. I have challenged many so-called, or maybe I should say self-described Constitutional lawyers who simply quote what is being done as what the Constitution says. Here we have you (a little old lady) showing that, if one is able to read, understand and articulate what the Constitution actually says, then it shows that what the government is doing is, in many cases, unconstitutional. I particularly like your statement that one must go to the Federalist Papers to understand what the Founders had in mind in their writings. If only the Supreme Court would do the same. Again…OUTSTANDING!

    Comment by Suncoast | July 8, 2012 | Reply

  27. [...] 5 I explain the treaty making power of the United States here and here. [...]

    Pingback by Obama Usurping Congress by Issuing Unconstitutional Executive Orders; Why Doesn’t Congress Impeach Him? « Romanticpoet's Weblog | September 9, 2011 | Reply

  28. [...] I explain the treaty making power of the United States here and [...]

    Pingback by The President’s Enumerated Powers, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, and Executive Orders « A Nation Beguiled | August 30, 2011 | Reply

  29. Excellent article and easy to understand explanation. How do I go about getting permission to post part of the article in my upcoming newsletter? Giving proper credit to you the author and link to the site would not be a problem.

    Comment by Dominick Lerch | July 26, 2011 | Reply

    • Dominick, feel free to reprint what you like! Just be sure to:
      - keep in all the hyperlinks
      - have a link back to my website, and
      - indent all the quotes!

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 26, 2011 | Reply

  30. [...] It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word [...]

    Pingback by CLIMATE CHANGE" TREATY: | October 23, 2009 | Reply

  31. [...] were. I’ve found several good analysis of this issue, with links to three of those here, here and here. There are many others, but in my research I never happened upon any arguments for [...]

    Pingback by alpipkin.com » Global warming and the US Constitution | October 16, 2009 | Reply

  32. Dear Friend,
    I have not forgotten. I have been working out a strategy to combat the evil which has been for a long time taking over our land.

    How did it come to this? It began at least as early as the late 19th century with a radical change in philosophy & jurisprudence. The poisonous philosophy of pragmatism (Wm. James, Charles S. Peirce, John Dewey, etc.)dispensed with the concept of fixed principles and focused instead on the perceived utility of this belief or that belief. In jurisprudence, Darwinism was applied to law and the lawyers abandoned the concept of the law as reflecting fixed principles (e.g.,Blackstone’s Legal Commentaries & The Bible). Instead, Law was seen as “evolving” – in opinions of judges. And thus, “Law” came to be the opinions of judges, which change & evolve. The Constitution means what THEY say it means – it has no objective meaning.

    And what were the churches doing when this was going on? NOTHING. Our churches embraced statism, pietism,& eschatologies which promise escape or defeat. AH! They love it because such eschatologies justify their cowardice & passivity in the face of the evil which is consuming our land. They pat themselves on the back for being “spiritual” & above such mundane considerations as their surrender of our World to the devil.

    So why is Truth being ignored? They deny that such a thing as objective “Truth” exists! Pragmatism says that what is “true” for you may not be “true” for me; and what is “true” for me today, may not be “true” for me tomorrow. If it “works” for you, then it’s “true” for you. If it doesn’t “work” for me, then it’s not “true” for me. Don’t concern yourself with such silly notions as “Truth” or “Right and Wrong”! Those concepts have no meaning! The lawyers would laugh if you asked about the “true” meaning of The Constitution! They will tell you that you have to look to U.S. Supreme Court decisions to find out what The Constitution means. And of course, those opinions are subject to change – and they DO change! Every time we cite an opinion as authority for a legal argument, we have to check to see if the opinion has been reversed or modified!

    The Truth is ignored because there are not many like us. WE understand. Others don’t. Many of them don’t want to know. And the American People have been so dumbed down that they can not think. [By the way, that was the goal of the "progressive" educators: to create a people who couldn't THINK. This made them susceptible to indoctrination and psychological conditioning. I resisted because my Father had a classical education and he taught me Logic when I was a wee child.]

    How do we exert the Truth? You and I are doing what we can. I’ve been working on developing a style of writing which makes law & philosophy accessible to people who don’t have degrees in philosophy or law. A good writer can write on philosophy, law & theology and be understood by The People.

    What can we do? In my papers, I have mentioned several remedies recognized by Hamilton & Madison in The Federalist Papers. But the most important thing is this: We must change our minds about how we view the federal government. When we understand that they are lawless and are exercising usurped powers, then….. well, things look a bit clearer, don’t they? Read my paper on “Religious Freedom”. After reading that, how could anyone hesitate to say a prayer in a public place – even at a high school football game?! The federal government has no authority to ban religious speech in the public square! We have been indoctrinated into submissiveness to civil government. We have been told the lie that the “rule of law” demands we obey the civil government. But when they act lawlessly, as they usually do, we have to learn to say, “NO! YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO THIS AND I WON’T GO ALONG WITH IT”. Actually, for those who have taken the Oath to support The Constitution, our Oaths REQUIRE us to refuse to go along with unconstitutional laws, orders & opinions.

    I’ll respond later to your other excellent points. PH

    Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 23, 2009 | Reply

    • Good to hear from you!
      I appreciate your contemplative delay. Given my lack of background in this area, I am always playing catch up in my understanding and often feel rushed to reply to many of the misunderstandings out there that masquerade as truth. I appreciate the well thought out reply.
      What I read here rings very true with the other sources I have been reading like John Eidsmoe, the Truth Project, Probe Ministries, Gary Demar and more. Cultural pragmatism combined with church passivity (if not intentionally chosen blindness) has lead us here. Recognition and appreciation of the existence of absolute truth by the masses, especially in the catholic church (little “c” catholic) through clear writing/teaching will be key to an awakening as you stated.
      I must go now, but will read your references when I can sit down and digest them.
      Sincerely,
      Eric Potter MD

      Comment by Eric Potter | October 17, 2009 | Reply

  33. Hello,
    I am still looking forward to a dialogue on this issue with the author. Feel free to post your response here.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Potter MD

    Comment by Eric Potter | September 23, 2009 | Reply

  34. Thank you for your clear reasoning and historical evidence. I accept your case as to what “should be”. If this is true (I don’t have any contrary evidence to dispute it), then why is the truth being ignored, why are we letting it be ignored, and how do we exert the truth?
    I am not a lawyer, but my studies of this situation lead me to believe that a treaty such as the UN CRC will be used to usurp constitutionality and to bypass the normal process of amending our constitution. So, what do we do when the powers who interpret the law (courts, especially the Supreme Court) will not follow this interpretation of treaty making powers? Most legal leaders in our country accept the concept of the living constitution. Many legal leaders believe in transnationalism and customary international law. If I remember correctly, Justice Sotomayor has expressed such views. Would this treaty be overturned by the Supreme Court? Would state sovereignty fight and win this battle?

    Therefore, what response should occur when such things about treaties are said? How do we reach an American people so dull of understanding thanks to our educational system that has so well prepared them to accept such non-sense as we see in our day?

    – Even if it is not “Supreme Law of the Land”, how do we fight back? The federal government has stretched the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause to wrap around anything. I am sure that reasoning will be used again.

    – Would you agree with the statement that the federal government will use the UN treaty “as if” it is Supreme Law of the Land if no one challenges its constitutionality. And if it is challenged, will they simply slip into the check writing mode to entice compliance by states.

    I look forward to our dialogue for the sake of learning and the sake of furthering this fight for our children’s future. I apologize for the string of questions towards the end, but I had to rush on to other things.

    Sincerely,
    Eric Potter MD

    PS: I look forward to digging into your references and logic more as I have some free time.

    Comment by Eric Potter | September 19, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 851 other followers

%d bloggers like this: