Right Thinking From The Left Coast
"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Thursday, June 26, 2008

On Treaties
by Lee

From Federalist No. 64, written by John Jay.

Others, though content that treaties should be made in the mode proposed, are averse to their being the supreme laws of the land. They insist, and profess to believe, that treaties like acts of assembly, should be repealable at pleasure. This idea seems to be new and peculiar to this country, but new errors, as well as new truths, often appear. These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them absolutely, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it. They who make laws may, without doubt, amend or repeal them; and it will not be disputed that they who make treaties may alter or cancel them; but still let us not forget that treaties are made, not by only one of the contracting parties, but by both; and consequently, that as the consent of both was essential to their formation at first, so must it ever afterwards be to alter or cancel them. The proposed Constitution, therefore, has not in the least extended the obligation of treaties. They are just as binding, and just as far beyond the lawful reach of legislative acts now, as they will be at any future period, or under any form of government. [Bold emphasis mine.]

To put this in terms that anyone can understand:  Treaties must be treated as the supreme law of the land.  When you enter into a treaty you are bound by it.  If you wish to change the terms at some point in the future then you may do so, or you can withdraw from the treaty altogether, but what you cannot do is unilaterally ignore it.  The reason is simple—if we decide to arbitrarily ignore treaties at will, why would anyone trust us to honor treaties in the future?  Who would enter into a treaty with a nation which expected other nations to adhere to the commitment, but then reserves the right to ignore the treaty at will?

Think about that when you consider the ramifications of what has transpired over the past six years.  The stain of this administration will haunt us for years to come.

Posted by Lee on 06/26/08 at 06:32 AM in Politics, Law, & Economics  • (21) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink • Discuss this in the forums
Page 1 of 1 pages