The US Constitution states that all treaties ratified by congress shall be the supreme law of the land. They have the same authority as a constitutional amendment.
They are equivalent to law. And since these treaties deal with far more than the decision to go to war, they cannot be said to be superceded by newer legislation. As such, Congress would have had to officially repeal them.
No. You ignore the fact that these international treaties ARE US law.
False. If a treaty says that there is to be no use of armed force safe with authorization of the Security Council, and such authorization does not exist, then the treaty is being violated.
Such as? No evidence whatsoever that was presented was a solid indication for the presence of WMDs, and the CIA have in fact admitted that they had no solid evidence, and informed the White House of that fact.
You don’t think you act in self defense against an opponent who can’t hit you lacking the necessary delivery technology. This is really ridiculous.
False again. The existence of WMD is in fact irrelevant to the question whether the war was justified. As long as Iraq is lacking ICBMs, the WMDs don’t pose a direct threat to the US. In order for the war to be self-defense, a clear and present, i.e. imminent danger is necessary. Not the “couldawouldashoulda” that Bush presented, being dismissed as bogus by practically anyone who had studied Saddam.
It’s meant to address a disagreement between Doors and Diogenes*. With this board being inundated with “Bush is a war criminal” posts, it seems worthy of clarification.
*Sorry if that sounds like a replacement act for Siegfried and Roy.
Not true. Treaties are subordinate to the Constitution. Next, whether or not we violated any treaty (and which treaties are you talking about?) is a matter of debate. Finally- ya think the US Court of Appeals just might know a teeny bit of Constitutional law? :rolleyes: They ruled the “Incursion” was legal. So sorry, but the Courts (not some poster on the SDMB) have the authority AND knowledge to rule on what is & isn’t Constiutional. Now, I grant that the arguement that the “war” wasn’t Consitutional wasn’t a specious arguement- the Courts did hear it, and ruled on it- rather than throwing it out as “frivolous”. But it has been heard- and the Court ruled the “war” was perfectly Constitutional. Sorry. Thinking that you, as a SDMB poster- have the right and authority to declare something “unconstitutional” when the Courts have already ruled it isn’t, is either Hubris or foolishness.
Next- OliverH- no treaty says that we can’t go to war without authorization of the UNSC. You’re just plain wrong here.
As to your thought that without ICBMs Iraq could not & would not be a 'clear & present danger" to the USA is also wrong. The Taliban & Bin Laden had no ICMBs, either. The theory was that SH would have or was or had develeoped CBR weapons- ie WMD- and then provided them to terrorists to smuggle into the USA to use against us. Note, I agree we did not prove (and the evidence is poor) that SH was really a danger to the USA in this regard- but certainly he could have been.
I see. So what the treaty really means is that we are not allowed to attack any nation so backward and devoid of technology than they lack any means whatsoever to pose any threat, of any kind, however remote the prospect, and however indirect? “Maybe” and “could someday, perhaps” are quite sufficient grounds for spilling blood. Thiers, of course.
This must be of great comfort to Upper Volta and Gabon. Belgium, however, had best watch its step.
But why not just concede the point? The war was ill-advised, unnecessary, brutal, and based entirely on justifications that have been proven to have no foundation in fact. But legal.
Swell. Peachy. Can’t tell you how thrilled I am.
From elucidator
I AGREE with all that. On the question of whether its legal or not…well, I think its simply too fuzzy to tell. There are levels and levels here, as I said in my first post. US law…international law…various treaties and how they interact with the Constitution. It seems that there really ISN’T a definitive answer in all this.
My best take on it was said much better by DrDeth…the actions were neither legal nor illegal.
From DrDeth
I can tell you are jumping for joy atm. But then, you knew this was all retoric on BOTH sides…didntcha? 
-XT
[quote]
Treaties are subordinate to the Constitution**
Not when they’re ratified by congress. Here let me dispel some of that ignorance for you:
I’ll accept your retraction in advance. 
(fixed coding)
Not when they’re ratified by congress. Here let me dispel some of that ignorance for you:
I’ll accept your retraction in advance.
Well, that’s kinda vague, Diogenes. Doesn’t say anything about when the President thinks its a really, really good idea, or nothing. And “anything…to the contrary notwithstanding”, well, thats open to a lot of interpretation. Could mean lots of things. I haven’t got time right now to point them out to you, but you’re wrong. When I do find the time, you’re gonna feel really stupid.
Dumb, dumb Diogenes
Refers to the constitutions of the states, not the constitution of the country. It’s easier to understand if you read the whole paragraph:
Sorry, Dio. I think you got it wrong.
Oh, BTW. Here’s a simple rule to remember: Nothing in this country EVER supercedes the Constitution of the US. Nothing, Nada, Zip, Zilch. Never, Never, Never. A thousands times, Never.
No, Mace. you got it wrong. It refers the Constitution. The big one…and I didn’t say that treaties supercede the Constitution, I said they are equal to it, and they are. The POTUS had no authority to supercede it any more than he could supercede the first amendment.
Legal or not, the effect on our position is the same, isn’t it? The status of our credibility and leadership is as deeply buried in the compost bin whether or not there is or will be a formal document somewhere saying so.
It’s one sentence, Dio. It makes no sense if the second reference is to the US constituion. Let’s strip out the middle part and see:
“This Constitution… 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.”
You are claiming that it says: “The US Constitution is the law of the land, anything in the US Constitution notwithstanding.”
That’s utter nonsense. This whole paragraph says that the US constitution and US law supercedes State Constitutions and State law. If you need a lawyer to come into this thread to convince you, that can be arranged.
And Treaties are not co-eaqual with the Constitution. The Supreme Court could find a treaty, or some aspect of it, to be unconstitutional. It is theoretically possible for Congress to ratify a treaty with Iran part of which required the US to establish Islam as the official religion of the US. In that case, the SCotUS would declare that to be unconstitutional and invalid.
You don’t know what you’re talking about , Mace. Give it up. All treaties ratified by congress are coequal with the US Constitution. Deal with it.
Oh, “Supreme” law of the land MEANS that nothing can supercede it. That’s why it’s supreme.
No. Treaties are co-equal with Laws. And neither can violate the Constitution. Laws passed by Congress are “the supreme law of the land”, but they can be overturned by the SCotUS if they are found to by unconstitutional. Do you think treaties have some form of constitutional immunity?
Are you still going to claim that the second reference to “the Constitution” in Article VI means the US Constitution and not the States’ Constitutions? If so, I’d like to place a little wager with you on it. Or perhaps you’re not quite so sure you know what you’re talking about after all.
No, treaties are coequal with the US Constitution. That’s what “supremacy” means. Yes, reading it more carefully and researching the definition, I see that the Supremacy Clause states that no state law can supercede constitutional law, but the clause also gives treaties the same weight as constitutional law. As such, any treaty would have to be repealed by congress before it could be violated.
Once again “supreme law of the land” means that there is no law higher.
Incidentally, I’m reading this thread with great interest. Just so you all know that I am really interested in the answer.