3 ms·

State laws do not supersede federal treaties, but the federal government does not have the authority to enter into a treaty which would violate the Constitution

State laws do not supersede federal treaties, but the federal government does not have the authority to enter into a treaty which would violate the Constitution. Insofar as the UN Charter does not violate the constitution, you are correct that it is supreme to state laws and state constitutions, but it cannot by definition run contrary to the Constitution as the federal government would not have been able to enter into it. > Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not "under the Authority of the United States" to make such a treaty. https://jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html https://jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html

cma 5y ago
Plain reading, if that statement means it overrides state laws, then it also means it overrides the constitution. It was treated like that in the first few years and then courts came up with a bunch of creative interpretations not to.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  I've decided you're right. I typically advocate for the plain reading, and the plain does state that. Unfortunately this means I now must advocate for the overthrow of the US government, or at least the exitship of the UN Charter and all other treaties which expand power beyond those enumerated in Artice 1 Section 8. Edit: Actually I'm still not sure. Article 6 says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in the 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;..." Congress is not authorized to enter into a treaty which would violate the constitution, so how could they enter into a treaty with the "authority of the United States" if they are not authorized to do that?

cma 5y ago

Plain reading, if that statement means it overrides state laws, then it also means it overrides the constitution. It was treated like that in the first few years and then courts came up with a bunch of creative interpretations not to.

hellojesus 5y ago
I've decided you're right. I typically advocate for the plain reading, and the plain does state that. Unfortunately this means I now must advocate for the overthrow of the US government, or at least the exitship of the UN Charter and all other treaties which expand power beyond those enumerated in Artice 1 Section 8. Edit: Actually I'm still not sure. Article 6 says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in the 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;..." Congress is not authorized to enter into a treaty which would violate the constitution, so how could they enter into a treaty with the "authority of the United States" if they are not authorized to do that?