If Congress approves a treaty which violates the civil rights of American citizens, could that treaty ratification itself be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the same reasoning that any other act of Congress could be?

Granted, the history of McCain-Feingold doesn’t leave me too sanguine that -this- court would venture out on that limb, but still…

How about FDR, to whom the current President is already being compared?
Much of the New Deal has no Constitutional basis, and the Court struck down several of the proposed laws. The SC’s opposition led to FDR requesting judges to be added so that he could appoint ones beholden to him and his ideas. The request was eventually denied, but his point came across.

What about Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education?
How does that fit in with the 10th Amendment? Since education is not delegated to the federal government, it is reserved only to the states and the people, making the Dept. of Ed. illegal… But still with us.

I’m sure that if I actually take some time to do some research, I can pick up a few more.

Of course, if the President, Congress and the public all desire to violate the constitution in spite of a ruling by the supreme court, then there wouldn’t be much that could be done. Whether that would be good or bad in that specific case would depend upon the case and the decision, but after nearly two centuries of respect for decisions of the supreme court, outright dismissal of its decision would be the mark of an executive tyrant.

Maybe I didn’t make clear my last statement:

I don’t TRUST that the current legislature would NOT enter into a treaty that violated the Constitution, simply because their agenda dictated they had to try an end-run around the American Voters I do not TRUST that the Supreme Court would uphold United States Constitutional law over foreign law. I do not TRUST that Harold Koh would NOT let himself be influenced by foreign interests if he gains the position of State Department Legal Adviser.

I DON’T trust this government (this administration or the last) to actually do work on the behalf of America’s citizens. Or to protect our Nation’s sovereignty.

As I said before, the Constitution is at the top and both laws and treaties must be consistent with the Constitution. Neither law nor treaty can change the constitution. When a law and a treaty are in conflict the courts may judge the expressed intent of congress for a law to supersede a treaty in force but otherwise will likely go with whichever is adopted later in time.

I do want the supreme court to be able to judge whether laws and treaties are consistent with the constitution – I certainly don’t want one branch of government – neither congress nor the president – operating without oversight by another branch. If the president wants to do something that appears to violate the constitution, then he can defend the action in court or seek an amendment to the constitution.

A treaty which disagrees with our Constitution would have to be approved by a two thirds majority correct? Just like any other treaty, right? Do you honestly think that this current crop of hirelings, that have historically not been listening to us about damn near anything, would have any problem with violating our Constitution to forward whatever agenda they had on their plates? Treaties with foreign countries can be a sideways tool to change our Constitution without having to actually have the States go to all that pesky trouble of holding an election on the issue, getting 3/4ths of the States to agree, and writing into our CONSTITUTION an Amendment.

BECAUSE A TREATY HAS EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE CONSTITUTION, ACCORDING TO ARTICLE SIX OF THE CONSTITUTION.

It is not on equal footing to any other law on the books, it is part of the Constitution. It doesn’t override the Constitution because it is a PART of it. If the treaty itself violates the Constitution, but is approved by 2/3rd of our hirelings anyway, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over implementation. Do we really want national security issues decided by the jackasses who believe that foreign laws have any place whatsoever in OUR country and have made such grievous calls in the arena of personal liberty and limited government?

Also, treaties require a two-thirds majority, not 50+1.