zlacker

>>walter+(OP)
UN cybercrime treaty was unanimously approved by 200 countries this week.

>>walter+Wx
Well, that’s depressing. Were EFF recommendations applied?

>>acheon+AC
I don't think the EFF has much suction at the level of international diplomacy. Most UN countries, including much of Europe, don't have the basic categorical legal principles much of EFF's argumentation relies on, especially re: free expression and rules of evidence.

Fortunately, those same legal principles in the US cannot be overridden by a treaty.

>>tptace+sJ7
For strict textualists it is ambiguous whether the supremacy clause puts treaties above the constitution, or was referring to state constitutions:

> 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.

And there is no explicit ordering of priority between them and the Constitution.

>>cma+um8
I don't think this is true, regarding federal law precedence and the Constitution. To be true would be to imply that the Senate, with the cooperation of the executive and one other country(?!), can override the Constitution.

You don't have to get there axiomatically though; you can just look this up. Treaties are coequal with federal statutes, and are overridden by any conflicting statute passed after the treaty is ratified.

>>tptace+mp8
Based on the Wikipedia article[0], it seems clear that the Supreme Court can declare a treaty unconstitutional just as it can with a federal statute. The president also appears to have the power to unilaterally withdraw from treaties whenever he wishes and treaties don't take effect without an act of Congress implementing them. In other words, the treaty power is very weak under US law. In short, the US government cannot be bound by any treaty against the will of the people's elected representatives. The fears motivating support for the Bricker Amendment[1] during the Eisenhower administration seem to have been unfounded.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment

>>bdw520+rN8
The domestic legal terms of any treaty can also be superseded by a simple act of congress, because of the last-in-time rule.

>>tptace+oO8
Lots of aspects of ease of federal law ignoring treaties is fairly new, like from 2008 rulings.

>>cma+yO9
I do not believe that the Senate could override the Constitution by getting Belize to go along with them in 1950, either.

>>tptace+XR9
Not talking about that aspect (supremacy of it vs constitution), but this and related stuff with treaties vs federal law:

> The enforceability of treaties was further limited in the 2008 Supreme Court decision in Medellín v. Texas, which held that even if a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of Congress or is itself explicitly "self-executing".[26] Law scholars called the ruling "an invisible constitutional change" that departed from both longtime historical practice and the plain language of the Supremacy Clause.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause