I found several mentions of treaties in the document, but three stood out. I have truncated them for brevity (within reason), but I believe the meaning of the text is undamaged:
- Article 2, Section 2:“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 3, Section 2:“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”
- Article 6: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.
The preceding segments plainly state that treaties entered into via the Constitutionally defined process are, in fact, equal to the Constitution for the purposes of the judiciary process. While I think this is dangerous, it is stated in the document twice.
Bear in mind that the Constitution does defend itself, but the text does not specifically declare that treaties cannot be held above it in such conflicts – only “laws” of “any state.” Even if we mean to define the word “State” to include foreign “States,” treaties and laws aren't the same thing. This certainly brings into question the original founders' meaning, but I'm stuck on a logical failure in that I don't feel like we can be truly certain of what they meant at the time – the only thing we have to go on is what the text of the document literally reads.
The above supports the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) that declared that the Geneva Conventions had to apply to “enemy combatants,” which to me really means foreign terrorists. I argued at the time that the Supreme Court had no business even ruling on the basis of the Geneva Conventions, and it would seem that I was probably in error in that.
Frustrating, but inevitable from time to time.
So our own Constitution, when relating to treaties with other nations, is on parity with authorities granted by those treaties, effectively forcing me to re-evaluate the entire relationship with the United Nations. I don't have to like the U.N., mind you, but I feel compelled to try to understand the organization a little better.
So here is what I intend to do: I've selected a few key documents that I intend to read (some of which I have read before, but I feel like I should read again in this context) and I will try to expand my understanding of them. I'm sure I'll come across other materials to read, at which point I'll surely share them if they are relevent.
Key Documents of Interest:
- The Constitution of the United States
- The Charter of the United Nations
- Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice:(Considered an “integral part” of the U.N. Charter, but for some reason not included in the Charter's actual text).
- Text of the Geneva Conventions:
I don't have to like the concept of our sovereignty being subject to international interests, but if I'm going to argue against the current way of the world, I might as well find ways to do so within the context of it rather than trying to argue it away entirely – because it won't be changing anytime soon. Call it the New World Order, or blame the Freemasons, or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that the system that exists today will be built on more and more over the coming years until it either cannot be sustained economically or is destroyed through war.
I wish I believed that human-kind was smarter than that, but I truly don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment