OT: Colorado shooting

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Kenny you are right, a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution.

My premises was made on Article VI. Section 2 which 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…”

If I’m interpreting it wrong, then my apologies. I don’t want to give out false information.

Edited to add:

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Unless the Supreme Court has overruled Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), I'm pretty doubtful that treaties supersede the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have both said that international law should take precedence over US law.

[nolemmings]

Unless the Supreme Court has overruled Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), I'm pretty doubtful that treaties supersede the Constitution.

Duh. Kenny shame on you for pointing out the obvious.

[teetwoohsix]

Words of wisdom:

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...talk&Itemid=69

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, as I understand it that provision means a treaty takes precedence over the laws of any state -- it's a federalism provision. A law passed by Congress is also the supreme law of the land, but is still subject to the Constitution -- as is a treaty.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Wow, I did not think that this thread would go in the direction it has gone.

Sorry I even started this thread

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Wow, I did not think that this thread would go in the direction it has gone.

Sorry I even started this thread

Why? It's a discussion within a discussion thread within a discussion forum: People having intelligent conversation without beating each other to death, which is fairly rare on the internet, and to be commended.

I don't think straying from victim empathy is a bad thing - we all are very aware of how tragic this was.

[nolemmings]

pertinent language from Reid v. Covert:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

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; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. ... 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. [n32] 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.