Full Version: Article 6
This thread is a discussion of Article Six of the Constitution. For those not familiar with said article I will quote the part pertaining to treaties:
Now a discussion has been brewing over whether the U.S. is bound to the laws set out by treaties which it signs. This article of the constitution makes it quite clear that the U.S. must accept international law (where agreed to by the U.S. in the form of a treaty) as the Law of the Land. Now some questions have been posed regarding this:
[1]Even if it violated the constitution?
[2]And you didn't answer my question. What would happen if our obligations to NATO would conflict to our obligations to the UN charter?
[3]Relevance???
[4]Can you name the occasions? Because I can name some occasions were it didn't.
I'm going to answer these one at a time.
1. No, not if it violated the Constitution. Like I said, the word "notwithstanding" is used. In case you are unfamiliar with the term it indicates that the power of the States cannot trump any legitimate authority (as spelled out in the constitution) of the Federal Government. That being said if the government entered into a treaty that inherently contradicted some other area of the Constitution a mechanism exists to resolve the conflict; the Supreme Court.
2. Any such conflicts are matters for the treaties themselves. International Cooperation treaties are enormously complex and they would carry the text describing the mechanism for resolution of a conflict of authority.
3. The relevance is clear. If the U.S. signs on to the International Criminal Court it would be bound by the decisions and actions of that court because Article Six would make it "The Law of the Land." If Article 6 had no weight in internatiional relations as you suggest then America would have no concerns about agreeing since their participation would not be guaranteed by any aspect of the Constitution.
4. Ok, please do so. What ocassions are you aware of where you have proved me wrong? Bare in mind that the United States is "free" to disregard treaties it has signed on to if there is no mechanism of recourse. The United States failed to pay its UN dues for several years, in direct contravention of the UN Charter, which the United States is a signatory of. However, the United Nations has no legal ability to seek compensation or redress. That does not mean that the law itself is invalid; merely that the U.S. is powerful enough to effectively prevent any enforcement.
Now if you can explain to me how that proves that Article 6 doesn't mean exactly what it says then I'd welcome being corrected.
QUOTE
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.
Now a discussion has been brewing over whether the U.S. is bound to the laws set out by treaties which it signs. This article of the constitution makes it quite clear that the U.S. must accept international law (where agreed to by the U.S. in the form of a treaty) as the Law of the Land. Now some questions have been posed regarding this:
QUOTE(G Iron)
QUOTE
Yeah, who needs to apply the law as it was written when you can supply logic. Look closely at Article 6. It does establish a "notwithstanding" clause. The fact remains that Article 6 IS binding.
[1]Even if it violated the constitution?
[2]And you didn't answer my question. What would happen if our obligations to NATO would conflict to our obligations to the UN charter?
QUOTE
If it weren't then the U.S. would have nothing to fear from signing the International Criminal Court.
[3]Relevance???
QUOTE
I know you don't want to accept it; but Article 6 is written extremely clearly and it can be seen in practice on numerous ocassions so I'm not sure how you're refuting my "interpretation."
[4]Can you name the occasions? Because I can name some occasions were it didn't.
I'm going to answer these one at a time.
1. No, not if it violated the Constitution. Like I said, the word "notwithstanding" is used. In case you are unfamiliar with the term it indicates that the power of the States cannot trump any legitimate authority (as spelled out in the constitution) of the Federal Government. That being said if the government entered into a treaty that inherently contradicted some other area of the Constitution a mechanism exists to resolve the conflict; the Supreme Court.
2. Any such conflicts are matters for the treaties themselves. International Cooperation treaties are enormously complex and they would carry the text describing the mechanism for resolution of a conflict of authority.
3. The relevance is clear. If the U.S. signs on to the International Criminal Court it would be bound by the decisions and actions of that court because Article Six would make it "The Law of the Land." If Article 6 had no weight in internatiional relations as you suggest then America would have no concerns about agreeing since their participation would not be guaranteed by any aspect of the Constitution.
4. Ok, please do so. What ocassions are you aware of where you have proved me wrong? Bare in mind that the United States is "free" to disregard treaties it has signed on to if there is no mechanism of recourse. The United States failed to pay its UN dues for several years, in direct contravention of the UN Charter, which the United States is a signatory of. However, the United Nations has no legal ability to seek compensation or redress. That does not mean that the law itself is invalid; merely that the U.S. is powerful enough to effectively prevent any enforcement.
Now if you can explain to me how that proves that Article 6 doesn't mean exactly what it says then I'd welcome being corrected.
I hope I'm reading the context of this correctly... 
Article VI does say we are bound to abide by treaties we make.
However, we must be very clear that Article I states:
If through the adoption of a treaty our congress decides to release some of their legislative power to a foreign body, that is their decision.
However, once the foreign body starts creating law that effects the American citizen, Article I has been breached.
That is unconstitutional.
Mike
Article VI does say we are bound to abide by treaties we make.
However, we must be very clear that Article I states:
QUOTE
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
If through the adoption of a treaty our congress decides to release some of their legislative power to a foreign body, that is their decision.
However, once the foreign body starts creating law that effects the American citizen, Article I has been breached.
That is unconstitutional.
Mike
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.