Periodically, the United States Government will publish a compendium of its “Treaties in Force”.
These are international treaties to which the President of the United States, with the consent of the Senate, has agreed to subject the whole of the United States to.
These treaties supersede both Federal Law and State Law.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TIF-2020-Full-website-view.pdf
Some significant ones listed:
-
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION - TAXATION - Tax reimbursement agreement, with annex. Signed at Washington September 17, 1997. Entered into force September 17, 1997. TIAS 12883
-
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW - TAXATION - Tax reimbursement agreement, with annex. Signed at Rome September 17, 2013. Entered into force September 17, 2013. TIAS 13-917
-
Geneva Convention on road traffic, with annexes and protocol. - Done at Geneva September 19, 1949. Entered into force March 26, 1952. 3 UST 3008; TIAS 2487; 125 UNTS 22 Depositary: United Nations
Please let me know significant ones to add to the list.
Which of these should we want revoked and why?
How would one go about working to revoke these, and what would the consequences be?
Was the ability to enter into treaties delegated from the President to the Secretary of State?
Thanks to u/bubble_bursts and u/AlgaeBanquet for reminding me about intending to make this thread.
More posted as I dig through the document myself.
Constitution Article VI (clause 2):
"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."
So, it is clear ("...any thing in the Constitution...to the contrary notwithstanding"...) that enforcement of treaties can supersede the provisions of the Constitution. So saith the Constitution.
Not quite. Observe this linguistic grouping:
You seem to have read it this way:
STATE Constitutions and Laws do not supersede U.S. Treaties, as initially noted.
The constitutional lack of several clarifying commas is always confusing.
Ah. Great insight. Much preferable. I think this is the source of some false implications over recent history. Thanks. (I was never happy with the way I read it, but did not see the other reading.)
Yeah, I had similar issues with the 2nd amendment for years, but once I figured it out, so many lights came on!
Unfortunately, there are many popular misinterpretations of the US Constitution that occur like this throughout the document.
You missed "under the authority of the united states" that authority is derived from the Constitution. The constitution does not control us it controls the government. Big difference on where that authority is derived and who is subjected to it. We the people are not under the Constitution, the constitution is literally the will of the people. Its the individual, the state then the federal gov. So any treaty made only puts the state and the feds under its authority. Its the tenth amendment that seperates the three distinctly. They love it when we believe we are the subjects of control under the Constitution. That thinking is a deceptive lie. My only ruler is God. Period.
I agree with the basics of your thinking. No treaty should be used as a back door to amend the Constitution, which has been a form of bad behavior for decades.