[Peace-discuss] Trumping the Constitution

[LAURIE]

> Is a treaty binding when it violates the constitution? I
> don't think so, but international crony capitalism claims otherwise.

Obviously, if and when it violates the Constitution is pretty much up to the
Courts to decide, unless you are now saying that the Federal Courts are part
of the international crony capitalists, which they very well may be, and
that Marbury VS Madison, which established judicial review and gives the
federal courts their power and authority to interpret the constitution and
its applicability to treaties, laws, administrative and legislative rulings,
etc. is unconstitutional.

> Just because something
> is a law generated by constitutional procedures does not mean that it
> is a constitutional law. This definitely includes treaties.

Unfortunately, there is no constitutional laws; there is only the
Constitution and legislatively generated laws or codes.  The notion of
Consitutional Law refers to Federal Court decisions (especially the Supreme
Court decisions) that pertain to U.S. Constitution and its provisions.
Treaties that have been approved by the Congress and the Executive Branch
(i.e., The President) have the status and standing of law (like any other
law) under the provisions of the US Constitution but are not provisions of
the Constitution.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Bob Illyes
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:40 PM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumping the Constitution
> 
> Wayne is exactly right regarding international law. Just because
> something
> is a law generated by constitutional procedures does not mean that it
> is a
> constitutional law. This definitely includes treaties.
> 
> Permitting a UN security council decision to take us to war, for
> example,
> violates the Constitution. This was finessed during the Korean War by
> refusing to call it a war, as you doubtless all know, but this is
> childish
> nonsense.
> 
> More recently, Congress declared that Bush could decide whether or not
> to
> invade Iraq. This was legal, but not constitutional.
> 
> It is also routine for the President to legislate (thing published in
> the
> Federal Register have the force of law unless contested). Congress
> could
> vote to give the President all legislative power. If signed, this would
> be
> completely legal, and completely unconstitutional.
> 
> Organizations like the WTO are an anathema. They make binding laws but
> are
> not elected. Is a treaty binding when it violates the constitution? I
> don't
> think so, but international crony capitalism claims otherwise.
> 
> Bob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss