|
Reid v.
Covert essentially says the U.S. government may not
enforce a treaty that calls for it to exercise powers not delegated
by the Constitution. It did not overturn Missouri
v. Holland because that presumably only involved the
exercise of powers that were delegated. The issues on that were not
argued, so the Court couldn't go into it, but that case cited the
Necessary and Proper Clauses without citing another power clause
such as the Commerce Clause for which it was for "carrying into
execution". Only the Treaty Clause itself. That essentially elevated
the N&P clause into an untethered delegation of power. All our rights come down to that N&P clause, together with any others to which it might be tethered, such as the Commerce Clause. If the line of precedents that begin with McCulloch v. Maryland are not rolled back, then as far as the federal courts are concerned our rights are only the privileges they deign to bestow on us. See Unnecessary and Improper . I see no way to do that through litigation. It will take amendments to the Constitution, such as those I have proposed. On 07/11/2011 04:30 PM, Guy Smith wrote: How are conflicts between federal legislation and treaty requirements resolved? Since both are codified as "supreme" via the supremacy clause, which trumps the other? -- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society http://constitution.org 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------- |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
