3 ms·
The important feature here is that it was unconstitutional due to Article 10, which delegates all other powers not laid out to the states. If it were unconstitu
by rtkwe 9y ago
The important feature here is that it was unconstitutional due to Article 10, which delegates all other powers not laid out to the states. If it were unconstitutional because of some other clause that'd be the end of it at least until a different interpretation of whatever clause came about. With Article 10 however it just means the federal government needed to find some clause that gave them the appropriate constitutional authority. It doesn't work for everything but it does work for a lot of stuff.
- kevin_b_er 9y agoWhat wouldn't it work with? It sounds like any treaty can at all override a claim to states rights. The 10th amendment is thus absolutely meaningless because the set of all rights that are supposedly left to the states can be covered by a treaty.
- rtkwe 9y agoIt won't work with anything that is expressly forbidden in the constitution. Other than that currently it's pretty broad. There's a Harvard Law Review article [0] about the limits such as they are and does a better job than I ever could being professionals and actual lawyers. [0] https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-power/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-po...