zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. cma+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-08-14 13:14:26
Lots of aspects of ease of federal law ignoring treaties is fairly new, like from 2008 rulings.
replies(1): >>tptace+p3
2. tptace+p3[view] [source] 2024-08-14 13:39:10
>>cma+(OP)
I do not believe that the Senate could override the Constitution by getting Belize to go along with them in 1950, either.
replies(1): >>cma+In
◧◩
3. cma+In[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-14 15:26:28
>>tptace+p3
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

[go to top]