Prof. Maule asks:

> A treaty between the United States and England? France? each of the
German principalities? Or a treaty among the states that became signatories
to it?

ANSWER:  The Constitution is a treaty between the states (of the U.S.).

Prof Maule continues:
> What treaty exists that binds a non-signatory? How could England be bound
by the US Constitution?

COMMENT: England is not bound by the U.S. Constitution as a matter of
treaty law.

Prof. Maule continues:
> Conversely, what non-signatory can claim rights under a treaty?

ANSWER: A non-signatory state cannot claim any rights under a treaty,
according to treaty law.

Prof. Maule continues:
>Can an English citizen claim rights under the US Constitution?

COMMENT:  Yes. For example, aliens have due process rights.

Prof. Maule continues:
> On the other hand, if the norms of treaty interpretation (rather than
norms of code interpretation or judicial opinion interpretation) are the
best norms to apply to interpretation of the Constitution (assuming that
there is no separate set of constitutional interpretation), that's a
different notion. Or, it could be that norms of treaty interpretation
should influence development of norms of constitutional interpretation?

COMMENT:  What I am arguing is that the Constitution MUST be construed in
conformity with the U.S.' customary international legal obligations,
evidence of which is found in (in part) the U.S.' acceptance of widely
adopted multilateral treaties (e.g., ICCPR) and -- sometimes (depending on
a number of factors) -- their construction in light of other treaties to
which the U.S. is not a party (e.g., ECHR).

What is particularly helpful about recognizing the Constitution as a treaty
that must be construed in conformity with the U.S.' customary international
legal obligations is that it solves some of the conundrums of
constitutional construction, such as how one can be an originalist and
still recognize that the Constitution's meaning is evolving and  how to
enumerate those unenumerated rights retained by the people in the 9th
Amendment,.

Francisco Forrest Martin

Reply via email to