posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by Robonakka
Well, you made me go hunting a little bit on this one as I assume you meant that as a legitimate question. I got your answers on it though, and it's
as clear as can be. It just takes real patience to read through painfully boring legalese in the Super Court Decisions that clarify and make practical
the Constitutional basis it's formed from.
First the precedents, which are what matter most, as all legal cases afterward are decided in line to or at least, with consideration of these
precedents. If it's reversed, as occsainally (though very rarely) happens, it's with explanation they usually need to do it. Especially for a
precedent so clearly set.
De Geofroy Vs. Riggs (1890)
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 government, or in that of
one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
Reid Vs. Covert (1957)
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. [n34] 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.
There are more, but those hit the most important core issue as it's been decided and settled to this point. The part of the Constitution they are
interpreting to make those decisions is Article VI.
Article VI: Legal Status of the Constitution
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, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
I hope that helps a bit. The Power of the Presidency and even that of Congress along with him....still don't overpower that document. The only way
that happens is if the PEOPLE allow it to happen and don't take it to the 3rd branch whose original sole purpose was this very type of problem.
This is why I've not been terribly worried about this matter, no matter what the final text of the treaty came out to say. It could have said all
firearms owners have to wear purple polka dotted leotards. Well.... I hope those who would misunderstand the Supremacy Clause have fun looking funny
because the rest of us would be laughing at those who signed it.