6 ms·

Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself. To quote the Supreme Court case Reid v. Covert (1957), "this Court has regularly and unifor

Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself. To quote the Supreme Court case Reid v. Covert (1957), "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

miles 11y ago
"Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself." While I agree that should be the case, it is sadly a bit more nuanced[1]: Under the Constitution as originally understood, the short answer is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution. The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution.” But the full answer is more complicated. This is because the Founding-Era evidence does suggest that the Constitution enables the federal government to acquire significant—although not unlimited—additional power by entering into treaties. ... In 1783, the Confederation Congress debated and approved a treaty with the Netherlands despite recognizing that the terms of the treaty might interfere somewhat with freedom of religion. Thus Congress impacted the exercise of religion, an area over which the Articles otherwise gave it no authority. [1] http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/13/can-treaties-override-the-constitution/ http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/13/can-treaties-over...
- morgante 11y ago
  The Articles of Confederation were an entirely different (and weaker) document. I highly doubt the Supreme Court would ever side with a treaty which conflicted with the Constitution.
Terr_ 11y ago
Right: Assuming treaties were intended to override the rest of the Constitution is basically making the claim that everyone who ratified it back then was an idiot.
twoodfin 11y ago
And it doesn't matter anyway, because trade pacts in the US have been enacted through Congressional-Executive Agreements rather than the treaty ratification process for decades.

miles 11y ago

"Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself." While I agree that should be the case, it is sadly a bit more nuanced[1]: Under the Constitution as originally understood, the short answer is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution. The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution.” But the full answer is more complicated. This is because the Founding-Era evidence does suggest that the Constitution enables the federal government to acquire significant—although not unlimited—additional power by entering into treaties. ... In 1783, the Confederation Congress debated and approved a treaty with the Netherlands despite recognizing that the terms of the treaty might interfere somewhat with freedom of religion. Thus Congress impacted the exercise of religion, an area over which the Articles otherwise gave it no authority. [1] http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/13/can-treaties-override-the-constitution/ http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/13/can-treaties-over...

morgante 11y ago
The Articles of Confederation were an entirely different (and weaker) document. I highly doubt the Supreme Court would ever side with a treaty which conflicted with the Constitution.

Terr_ 11y ago

Right: Assuming treaties were intended to override the rest of the Constitution is basically making the claim that everyone who ratified it back then was an idiot.

twoodfin 11y ago

And it doesn't matter anyway, because trade pacts in the US have been enacted through Congressional-Executive Agreements rather than the treaty ratification process for decades.