The U.S. signed the U.N. Charter

[ProSense]

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2. The clause establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, mandating that all state judges must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law or when a conflict arises between federal law and a state constitution. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

<...>

United Nations Charter

The Charter of the United Nations is the foundational treaty of the international organization called the United Nations.<1> It was signed at the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center in San Francisco, United States, on June 26, 1945, by 50 of the 51 original member countries (Poland, the other original member, which was not represented at the conference, signed it later). It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council—the Republic of China (later replaced by the People's Republic of China), France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (later replaced by the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories. Today, 192 countries are the members of the United Nations.

As a charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations.<1> Most countries in the world have now ratified the Charter. One notable exception is the Holy See, which has chosen to remain a permanent observer state and therefore is not a full signatory to the Charter.<2>

<...>

[Warren Stupidity]

1. We are not required to go to war against other nations because of a security council vote.

The constitution remains superior to any treaty obligation.

[ClarkUSA]

4. What war? Prove that the UN-backed coalition of 12 nations and counting have declared war on Libya.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Attacking a country with dozens of cruise missiles is not war?

It's a "freedom tap"?

[ClarkUSA]

45. It's a UN mission to prevent genocide. It's what Bill Clinton should've done in Rwanda.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. It may be a just war - or not. But it's war.

If Canada lobbed cruise missiles at us for torturing one of their citizens, would you not call it war?

[ClarkUSA]

77. Says you. No one at the UN or the international community agrees with you.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Is Canada part of the international community?

As the international community launched aerial military missions against Libya on Saturday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the action amounts to an ``act of war'' that is critical to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power before he massacres any more of his own people.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Harper+calls+Libya+coalition+begins+aerial+mission/4473490/story.html#ixzz1H8JP0GRu

[ClarkUSA]

81. Barely, given the idiot Bush-clone at its helm.

This is the exact quote, which is not quite as billed:

"We should not kid ourselves. Whenever you engage in military action - essentially acts of war - these are difficult situations,'' Harper said.

Close but no cigar. There's no doubt in many Canadians' minds that Harper is an ignoramus. This statement is proof positive. Bush said alot of stupid things, too.

[MannyGoldstein]

85. "Whoosh!" go the goalposts. nt

[ClarkUSA]

86. Wrong. Harper did not declare war, did he? Nor did he say "it's war".

[former9thward]

The dictionary can be your friend.

war (wôr)
n.
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious

BTW we never declared war on Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II or Afghanistan. Are you now saying none of these were wars because they weren't declared?

[ClarkUSA]

48. The UN resolution is hundred of thousands of Libyan rebels' friend.

You can't stop artillery shells with a dictionary.

[former9thward]

57. Not their only friend, al-Queda is giving its support also.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html

[ClarkUSA]

75. Al-Qaeda can yap all they want but Libyan rebels will remember who came through for them.

Just as in Egypt after Pres. Obama's speech, the rebels in Libya were chanting "Thank you Obama! Thank you America!" over and over again after news of the UN resolution spread.

BTW, The Telegraph is a right-wing rag.

[ProSense]

5. "The constitution remains superior to any treaty obligation."

The Constitution disagrees.

On edit: The U.S. Congress can decide to withdraw from the U.N. with a 67-majority vote. Until then, the Constitution demands that the U.S. honor its treaties.

[Hosnon]

7. No, not by a long shot. It is a very fundamental principle of U.S. international law

regarding the Treaty Clause that a treaty cannot amend the Constitution. There is an explicit process for amending spelled out in the Constitution, and it requires more than just the signatures of the President and 2/3 of the Senators.

Simply put, if a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins.

[ProSense]

10. What's it amending?

"The constitution remains superior to any treaty obligation."

The U.S. Congress can decide to withdraw from the U.N. with a 67-majority vote. Until then, the Constitution demands that the U.S. honor its treaties.

[Hosnon]

14. Unless said treaty conflicts with the Constitution. A line of reasoning around here today seems to

be that Congressional approval to declare a war is not required if a war is pursuant to the U.N. While I'm not convinced that Congressional approval is required here, the U.N. Charter has no bearing on the matter.

Perfect example would be if the U.N. Charter stated that any head of state could declare war. That conflicts with the Constitution and is an attempt to amend it - therefore it would not trump.

[ProSense]

21. What's the conflict?

You keep saying that and there is no conflict. The U.N. resolution was signed onto by the U.S. President. The U.S. is a signatory of the U.N. charter.

There is no conflict. There isn't even a conflict with the President's powers under law.

[NutmegYankee]

32. .

[Hosnon]

37. There is if you think that the President cannot declare war without congressional approval.

I personally don't think that's a relevant concern in this situation (for other reasons). But if you don't either, then I'm not sure I follow the point of this OP. It seems only relevant if it is an argument against that position.

[NutmegYankee]

20. False

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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 Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.




Let me repeat: any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Hosnon]

27. False? That's in exact agreement with what I'm saying. nt.

[NutmegYankee]

29. Look up the definition of notwithstanding.

It's the opposite of what you think.

[Hosnon]

35. You're right, but that sentence refers to state constitutions not the U.S. constitution.

A treaty cannot amend the U.S. constitution. Trust me on this one (i.e., don't make me pull the case law).

ETA: Aw screw it: Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

[NutmegYankee]

I was always under the other impression.

I was wrong.

[Luminous Animal]

44. "The Constitution" referred to in your second bolded statement refers to State Constitutions.

The Supremacy Clause establishes federal jurisdiction over states, their laws, and their individual Constitutions. It does not establish treaty jurisdiction over the Federal U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Constitutions supremacy over treaties in 1957; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

[NutmegYankee]

56. I learn something new on DU every day.

[Aerows]

39. Like it did over...

...War crimes and the Geneva Conventions a few years ago?

Spare me.

[Aerows]

40. Except it's biting Obama in the ass now

Apparently it was fine when it bit Bush in the ass.

This isn't partisan. I'm pissed about where we are going and where we have been lately. If we don't stand up and say enough, no matter what tag our legislators wear, we consent to it, and I don't consent.

I hate Ron Paul, but he wouldn't have dragged us into this shit. Gore isn't too charismatic, but he wouldn't have dragged us into this, either. Kucinich doesn't like it, Franken doesn't like it.

It's not partisan - it's ignoring hype and common sense.

[Hosnon]

11. +1. nt.

[ClarkUSA]

2. Thank you for the facts. This is not war, it is limited UN approved action by 12 nations & counting

Arab League member Qatar included.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. If it had been around...

...in 1920 DU would have opposed US membership in the League of Nations, but only mildly, because it was toothless. In 1945, it would have opposed US membership in the UN, more energetically, because the UN isn't completely toothless.

And it would have endorsed Robert Taft over Eisenhower and Stephenson in the 50's because of the Ohio senator's adamant insistence that US forces are never to be used except in defense of US territory.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Not to mention there would've been protests against getting involved in WWI and WWII.

[Luminous Animal]

There were portests against both wars.

[ClarkUSA]

26. I know.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. I don't mind consistent anti-interventionism...

....what I do mind is people who say "Intervention, but only in places that Bono has visited, like Darfur. So we know it's not all about the oil", and don't mean it.

If you're against intervention, you're against it.

[ClarkUSA]

38. I'm with you. I mind people who loudly denounce the accidental civilian killings in Af-Pak...

but don't seem to be at all concerned about the very real threat of genocide that Libyan rebels face if the UN had not acted. considering the bloodbath that has occurred, resulting in many hundreds of dead in just the past few days.

If you're against accidental civilian casualties, you should be against genocide.

[amandabeech]

8. Please consult with an actual Constitutional lawyer before you post this nonsense. n/t

[vaberella]

88. Have you consulted with them because from what I'm reading it's a mixed response.

[amandabeech]

89. I'd have to make some calls and dig out the books from storage.

I am willing to say that Prosense isn't right. More will take some work.

[Hosnon]

9. Between the Constitution and an Article VI Treaty, the Constitution will win.

At least with regard to U.S. law in a U.S. court.

[ProSense]

13. What are you talking about?

The Constitution demands that the U.S. honor its treaties lawfully entered into, in this case the U.N. Charter.

The U.S. Congress can decide to withdraw from the U.N. with a 67-majority vote.

Beyond that, no law has been broken.

[Hosnon]

18. Then perhaps you should clarify your OP. What exactly are you trying to say?

Because the Supremacy Clause most certainly does not elevate a treaty over the Constitution when the two conflict.

That is beyond doubt.

[ProSense]

24. No,

this statement makes no sense.

"Because the Supremacy Clause most certainly does not elevate a treaty over the Constitution when the two conflict."

A treaty lawfully entered into is what the Supremacy Clause (which is in the Constitution) demands the U.S. uphold.

It is the Constitution that elevates a treaty.

[Hosnon]

33. Yes it does.

I'm not sure what "It is the Constitution that elevates a treaty" is supposed to stand in opposition to, because you acknowledge that the Supremacy Clause is part of the Constitution (and the, um, supremacy clause, i.e., the clause that makes Article VI treaties supreme).

What exactly is your substantive argument? That we had to act because the Security Council voted to?

[ProSense]

34. "That we had to act because the Security Council voted to?"

It's the President's decision, and he voted with the Security Council.

Again, if Congress wants to withdraw from the U.N. and forbid the President to participate, then they can vote to do so. Otherwise, the President is within his powers to act on foreign policy.

[Hosnon]

42. Do you think that applies if the action would constitutionally require Congressional

approval pursuant to Article I?

[ProSense]

51. Trying

to argue that the Constitution in it's entirety supersedes a treaty is completely different from claiming that a treaty lawfully entered into and upheld for more than 60 years is trumped by the Constitution.

The U.S. adminstration has the power to vote as a member of the U.N. When the administration takes actions consistent with a U.N. resolution, there is nothing unconstitutional about that action.

The argument is completely bogus because the U.S. has engaged the U.N. in such actions for decades.

[Hosnon]

60. No, just because the U.N. Charter was ratified does not mean that it applies 100% to the U.S.

Only those parts that do not conflict with the Constitution can be said to have been "entered into and upheld for more than 60 years".

If the President declares a war pursuant to U.N. authorization, it is unconstitutional without Congressional approval.

[ProSense]

71. Wait

who said the U.N. Charter "applies 100% to the U.S."?

The U.S. is party to the U.N. The fact is that a President engaging the U.N. under that Charter is not unconstitutional. Period.

[Hosnon]

73. Constitutionality depends on what the issue is. nt.

[PATSNYC]

84. Failure To Get Consent Of Congress

The Constitution and US Statutes trump over International
Treaties.  So, the US Treaty with the UN is second place to 15
USC 1541.   

Last week, President Obama, was granted permission by the U.N.
to participate in an act of war against Libya.  The
motivations for invading Libya can be argued and debated, but
the essential problem is President Obama did not have legal
authority to provide any military intervention in Libya.  
President Obama has engaged the United States in a war based
solely upon authorization of the U.N., instead of
authorization of Congress as he is legally obligated to
obtain.  

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)
requires the President to get direct authorization from
Congress before sending American Armed Forces into active
intervention on foreign soil unless the United States is under
a direct attack or a serious threat.  Neither of the two
requirements exists

Section 1541(a) of that Act specifically states “It is the
purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers
of the Constitution of the United States, and insure that the
collective judgment of both the Congress and the President
will apply to the introduction of the United States Armed
Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” 
Section 1541(b) states “The constitutional powers of the
President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce the United States
Armed Forces into hostilities, into situations where imminent
involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to 1) a declaration
of war, 2) specific statutory authorization, or 3) a national
emergency created by attack upon the United States, it
territories or possessions, or its armed forces.  

In the absence of a Declaration of War by the United States,
the President must submit to the Speaker of the House a
written report within 48 hours of our Armed Forces 
deployment, setting forth a) the circumstances necessitating
the introduction of the United States Armed Forces; b) the
constitutional and legislative authority under which such
introduction took place; and 3) the estimated scope and
duration of the hostilities or involvement (50 USC 1543).  The
legally obligated written report has NOT been provided to
Congress; the President deployed our Armed Forces then
immediately departed the Country to be entertained by the
Brazilian people.  

[NYC Liberal]

28. Yes that's true. But since there is no conflict between the

treaty we have signed and the rest of the Constitution, there is no problem.

[Hosnon]

66. There is quite a bit of conflict between the Constitution and the U.N. Charter. nt.

[NYC Liberal]

78. No, not in this particular instance. nt

[Hosnon]

83. I largely agree with that. Although I'm open to the argument that this amounts to

a declaration of war (as the term was narrowed from "make" at the Constitutional Convention).

I'm generally a "the executive has broad authority to start and conduct wars" kind of person, if only from futility. Short of defunding, there's not much the other branches could do.

Decisions over war, by their very nature, seem to demand that they take place in the political arena, not a courtroom.

[Karmadillo]

12. Are you arguing the UN Charter trumps the US Constitution?

nt

[Luminous Animal]

16. Amazing, isn't it.

[myrna minx]

22. No kidding. I guess we're all shock doctrine neo-cons now.

[L. Coyote]

17. CHAPTER VI: PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES Article 33 1. The parties to any dispute

CHAPTER VI: PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 33

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 34

The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 35

1. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.
3. The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.

Article 36

1. The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Article 37

1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

Article 38

Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

[L. Coyote]

19. VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 47

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
Article 50

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.
Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

[mmonk]

23. Ratified treaties take precedence over all law but the Constitution itself.

In other words, statutes, not Constitutional division of powers.

[ProSense]

30. What?

The treaty wouldn't be ratified and agreed to upheld if it was unconstitutional. The U.N. charter has been upheld for more than 60 years. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution is what elevates a treaty. It specifically demands that the U.S. honor its treaties.

[mmonk]

36. Not where it may contradict the constitution.

That is reserved for the Judiciary. A treaty cannot consume the Constitution, only become the law of the land.

[Luminous Animal]

47. Reid v. Covert

"this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

[ProSense]

54. This is apples and oranges

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional.

The case involved Mrs. Covert, who had been convicted by a military tribunal of murdering her husband. At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement was in effect between the United States and United Kingdom which permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American servicemen or their dependents. The Court found that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." The Court's core holding of the case is that civilian wives of soldiers may not be tried under military jurisdiction, because the Fifth Amendment's grant for military jurisdiction, i.e. "except in cases arising in the land and naval forces" cannot sweep in the jury-trial requirement reflected in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Like I said, trying to argue that the Constitution in it's entirety supersedes a treaty is completely different from claiming that a treaty lawfully entered into and upheld for more than 60 years is trumped by the Constitution.

The U.S. adminstration has the power to vote as a member of the U.N. When the administration takes actions consistent with a U.N. resolution, there is nothing unconstitutional about that action.

The argument is completely bogus because the U.S. has engaged the U.N. in such actions for decades.

[jaxx]

25. I like the Supremacy Clause.

K&R

[Karmadillo]

41. The Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert 1957

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ut8oWWPyOSIJ:www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html+reid+This+Court+has+also+repeatedly+taken+the+position+that+an+Act+of+Congress,+which+must+comply+with&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
BLACK, J., Judgment of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
354 U.S. 1
Reid v. Covert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 701, October Term, 1955 Argued: May 3, 1956 --- Decided: June 11, 1956June 10, 1957
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join.

<edit>

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.

more...

[Hosnon]

43. Thank you. I just posted Reid upthread. nt.

[ProSense]

46. Hmmmm?

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. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

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.

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. 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 is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, which is contrary to the position taken here. There, the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.

In summary, we conclude that the Constitution in its entirety applied to the trials of Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Covert. Since their court-martial did not meet the requirements of Art. III, § 2 or the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, we are compelled to determine if there is anything within the Constitution which authorizes the military trial of dependents accompanying the armed forces overseas.

<...>

Trying for an apples to oranges comparison?

[mmonk]

49. Treaties supercede state laws, not the Constitution itself

as it relates to Constitutional matters such as divisions of powers of the federal government.

[Luminous Animal]

52. I think you should reread that carefully.

[Karmadillo]

53. You're pretty far gone, but I'll try to help.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/09/chain-email/chain-e-mail-says-un-treaty-would-force-us-ban-con/

<edit>

This fail-safe mechanism is the 1957 Supreme Court decision in Reid v. Covert. In that case, the majority ruled, among other things, that if a provision of a U.S.-ratified treaty were to run counter to the U.S. Constitution, it could not be enforced.

The majority wrote that the Supreme Court had "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. 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."

Our experts -- including scholars from across the ideological spectrum -- added that Reid v. Covert has attracted little dissent in subsequent years, so they consider it a strong bulwark against the kinds of threats envisioned by the author of the chain e-mail.

"No treaty can validly abridge a constitutionally-protected individual right," said Kal Raustiala, a UCLA law professor. "That issue was decided long ago. So the scenario laid out here is simply not accurate."

more...

[ProSense]

55. "No treaty can validly abridge a constitutionally-protected individual right,"

Yeah, because that's what the discussion is about, right?

Maybe stop trying to change the subject?

[Luminous Animal]

58. Aargh! Even though the article was addressing an individual right, specifically,.

Reid vs. Covert does not.

[ProSense]

61. Here

MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join.

These cases raise basic constitutional issues of the utmost concern. They call into question the role of the military under our system of government. They involve the power of Congress to expose civilians to trial by military tribunals, under military regulations and procedures, for offenses against the United States, thereby depriving them of trial in civilian courts, under civilian laws and procedures and with all the safeguards of the Bill of Rights. These cases are particularly significant because, for the first time since the adoption of the Constitution, wives of soldiers have been denied trial by jury in a court of law and forced to trial before courts-martial.

<...>

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. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

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.

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. 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 is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, which is contrary to the position taken here. There, the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.

In summary, we conclude that the Constitution in its entirety applied to the trials of Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Covert. Since their court-martial did not meet the requirements of Art. III, § 2 or the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, we are compelled to determine if there is anything within the Constitution which authorizes the military trial of dependents accompanying the armed forces overseas.

link

[Hosnon]

63. This broad rule from what you just posted is the death blow to your apples and oranges argument:

"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."

No splitting hairs.

ETA: Although I think this is a weaker argument than the Article V argument.

[ProSense]

67. Ridiculous

"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."

What exactly is that to prove? Who said anything about the treaty need not comply with the Constitution? Treaties are ratified by Congress.

To argue that the Constitution in it's entirety supersedes a treaty is completely different from claiming that a treaty lawfully entered into and upheld for more than 60 years is trumped by the Constitution.

The U.S. adminstration has the power to vote as a member of the U.N. When the administration takes actions consistent with a U.N. resolution, there is nothing unconstitutional about that action.

The argument is completely bogus because the U.S. has engaged the U.N. in such actions for decades.

[Hosnon]

70. That proves that anything in the U.N. Charter that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution

is unconstitutional. And the mere fact that the Senate ratified the U.N. Charter does not make it constitutional (although it might create a presumption of constitutionality).

Despite your repeated assertions, the passage of time will not make something unconstitutional constitutional. Regardless of the date of ratification, if something in the U.N. Charter conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, it will lose in a U.S. court.

And your line of thinking about the constitutionality of decisions taken by vote in the General Assembly rests completely on the constitutionality of the U.N. Charter. If that vote is pursuant to a provision of the U.N. Charter that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, then that vote is not constitutionally authorized.

[ProSense]

79. Wrong

"And the mere fact that the Senate ratified the U.N. Charter does not make it constitutional (although it might create a presumption of constitutionality)."

You're arguing that the U.N. Charter is unconstitutional? Really?

"And your line of thinking about the constitutionality of decisions taken by vote in the General Assembly rests completely on the constitutionality of the U.N. Charter. If that vote is pursuant to a provision of the U.N. Charter that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, then that vote is not constitutionally authorized."

I said that the President's actions are not unconstitutional. It is within his powers to act in accordance with the Charter.

Also, what part of the action is unconstitutional? Congress wants to challenge the President on the constitutionality of the action, let them. It's absurd for two reasons, it's not a declaration of war and it doesn't violate the War Powers Act.

Do you think the courts will determine the action violated the Constitution? Do you think Congress will vote against a declaration of war? They're probably chomping at the bits to have that vote.

Ridiculous.

[Hosnon]

82. No, I'm not. It's not an all-or-nothing thing.

I'm not making the argument that this action requires Congressional approval (which would therefore make it unconstitutional despite UNSC authorization). But that is a valid line of reasoning and I'm seeing that argument made here.

And that seems to be the argument that this entire thread is aimed at (seems to me).

And no, no court will ever rule on something like this under the Supreme Court's Political Question Doctrine (which is the very same reason that the probably-unconstitutional War Powers Act is still on the books). And Congress' only recourse would be, well, nothing (other than defunding, which they don't have the backbone to ever do).

[Karmadillo]

64. Wow. I don't suppose you have a case that supports your contention that the holding in Reid

doesn't apply to the UN Charter? Please post if you do. Thanks.

[Karmadillo]

87. Maybe one of the collective could post that case today. Thanks.

nt

[Hosnon]

50. ProSense: Perhaps you could clarify the argument you are advancing with this OP? nt.

[ProSense]

59. OK

here and here.

[Hosnon]

62. Reid established a broad rule of law with regard to Article VI treaties. Its application is not

limited to only treaties like those in Reid.

[Ignis]

65. This is a disgusting appeal to authority. The US is signatory to ...

MANY, MANY treaties to which we don't bother to even feign compliance.

The UN is not the UN Security Council. To pretend otherwise--especially when WE are the 900-pound gorilla of the UNSC--is disingenuous at best.

But hey, quelle surprise. :eyes: If Shrub had done the same thing, we'd be in the streets protesting.

ETA: lost a preposition in my haste, adding back in

[ProSense]

68. "The UN is not the UN Security Council"

Really?

Chapter V: The Security Council

[Ignis]

69. If you have an argument to make, make it. I'm not supporting your link-spam, sorry.

Hard work, oh no! :eyes:

[ProSense]

72. That's OK

Would have been a lame given the previous.

[Hosnon]

76. I agree with him on this one. The actions of the Security Council can legitimately

be said to be authorized by each member state.