NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember reading that the US Constitution places international treaties on the same level as national laws, if this is true, could someone help me and tell me where?

Me and a friend were just talking about international treaties and stuff, and I remember saying id read that somewhere

edit: never mind, just as i posted this i found it :rolleyes:

Article. VI.

Clause 2: 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.

Brians Room is correct. It is Article VI.

Here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html#5) is further discussion of the role of Treaties as law of the land.

Yea, like i said, i found it just after i posted, thanks for the help anyway

id been skimming through for a minute or two and got bored, and decided this was the best place to ask

as for discussion on it...it seems fairly cut and dry to me...

"Clause 2: 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"

"This Constitution....Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made...under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

cant see how you can argue with that

I’d like to ask a question...

Whether do you consider the UN Charter an international treaty (as enunciated in the US Constitution)? If yes, why it is a treaty? If no, why not?

I’d like to ask a question...

Whether do you consider the UN Charter an international treaty (as enunciated in the US Constitution)? If yes, why it is a treaty? If no, why not?

It isn't a treaty because all the UN Charter does is give a forum for the nations to come before it to have their problems hashed out and settled. The UN Charter sets up the organization giving various departments that have been set up by the charter certain powers. It is basically a business statement or a Constitution depending on how you want to look at it.

It is my understanding that in terms of legal importance, international treaties are second only to the Bible as the Supreme Law of the land in America.

It isn't a treaty because all the UN Charter does is give a forum for the nations to come before it to have their problems hashed out and settled. The UN Charter sets up the organization giving various departments that have been set up by the charter certain powers. It is basically a business statement or a Constitution depending on how you want to look at it.
Erm... I cannot think of a reason why a business statement or a Constitution cannot be an international treaty.

But is the UN charter a binding international agreement or not?

Erm... I cannot think of a reason why a business statement or a Constitution cannot be an international treaty.

But is the UN charter a binding international agreement or not?

An international agreement it is. I have not said anything different. However, it is not, by definition, a treaty.

An international agreement it is. I have not said anything different. However, it is not, by definition, a treaty.
The US law recognizes three kinds of binding international agreements, namely treaties, executive agreements, and congressional-executive agreements. Is the UN Charter a treaty, an executive agreement, or a CEA from the point of view of the US constitutional law?

An international agreement it is. I have not said anything different. However, it is not, by definition, a treaty.

In terms of law, yes, the United States is bound to uphold the UN Charter. The US is a signatory member of the United Nations, thus same thing as a treaty. Same as we are signatory members of the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions, they all apply as treaties and we are legally bound by them according to the Constitution. Well, unless the law makers amend the constitution. For example of something we are not bound by is the ICC, because unlike the rest of the world we don't feel we need to be accountable for our actions.

In terms of law, yes, the United States is bound to uphold the UN Charter. The US is a signatory member of the United Nations, thus same thing as a treaty. Same as we are signatory members of the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions, they all apply as treaties and we are legally bound by them according to the Constitution. Well, unless the law makers amend the constitution. For example of something we are not bound by is the ICC, because unlike the rest of the world we don't feel we need to be accountable for our actions.

And yet, the world complains when the US does the UNs business. Talk about hypocracy. We are told to follow the UN and we do and yet they still complain when we do. :rolleyes:

BTW: the House is debating on withholding half of dues till the UN Straightens up!

as for discussion on it...it seems fairly cut and dry to me...

The Constitution is fairly cut and dry. Gee, I wonder why we need lawyers and judges to interpret it. :confused:

The Constitution is fairly cut and dry. Gee, I wonder why we need lawyers and judges to interpret it. :confused:

That's what I want to know.

And yet, the world complains when the US does the UNs business. Talk about hypocracy. We are told to follow the UN and we do and yet they still complain when we do. :rolleyes:

Well what we need to get through the thick skulls of some is that while we are a signatory member, we also don't call the shots. It's called the United Nations, not the United States. And if I recall correctly the last resolution that passed about Iraq was 1441 in the document at no time in no clause did it say we could go and invade Iraq. And we can't use the self defense clause because Iraq has never attacked us nor were they a threat to our national security. If this was a court of law, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. No one will do anything because we are too militarily strong, not because we were right, because I think the majority of the world is correct in thinking we were in fact wrong. I think even we know that now. Except for die hard party loyalist and parrots.

Well what we need to get through the thick skulls of some is that while we are a signatory member, we also don't call the shots. It's called the United Nations, not the United States.

Something that everyone here already knows. Including me.

And if I recall correctly the last resolution that passed about Iraq was 1441 in the document at no time in no clause did it say we could go and invade Iraq.

I think this has been hashed and rehashed enough. I want to know what you consider "Serious Consequences." To me, its war. That is my opinion on that phrase.

And we can't use the self defense clause because Iraq has never attacked us nor were they a threat to our national security.

What do you call firing on our planes and us firing back? That's self-defense right there. We could've legally took him out when he fired on our planes the first time. And we weren't the only nation that Hussein fired on either. He also fired on British planes too and they retaliated the same way. So yea, you can use the self-defense clause in the UN Charter.

If this was a court of law, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. No one will do anything because we are too militarily strong, not because we were right, because I think the majority of the world is correct in thinking we were in fact wrong. I think even we know that now. Except for die hard party loyalist and parrots.

Your right that we are strong militarily. However, we are enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-fire. I'm still waiting on how this violates international law.

Believe as you've been told Corneliu, I think you're just a lost cause and I'm wasting my time trying to explain how it works.. the last clause in 1441 reads "We remain seized" in other words, nothing is to happen unless the SC meets again and decides it is to happen. As far as Iraq shooting at us, I believe that is over their land, not ours. So again, what did it have to do with OUR national security? Don't know? I'll tell you, NOTHING!

Corneliu, how about answering my question?

Believe as you've been told Corneliu, I think you're just a lost cause and I'm wasting my time trying to explain how it works.. the last clause in 1441 reads "We remain seized" in other words, nothing is to happen unless the SC meets again and decides it is to happen.

And Colin Powel told the Council, don't sign onto 1441 UNLESS YOU"LL SUPPORT the 2nd Resolution. France, Germany, and Russia ended that so the US and our allies took care of it anyway by USING PAST RESOLUTIONS! Are you that dumb upstairs not to figure this all out for yourself?

As far as Iraq shooting at us, I believe that is over their land, not ours. So again, what did it have to do with OUR national security? Don't know? I'll tell you, NOTHING!

They were still FIRING AT BRITISH AND AMERICAN PLANES!!!! That in and of itself is in violation of the Cease-fire. That is also a cause for Self-Defense. Apparently your not grasping this subject.

Now how is enforcing 17 UN Resolutions a violation of International Law? How is going to war after a violation in the Cease-fire a violation of International Law? I'll tell you, IT DOESN'T!

Corneliu, how about answering my question?

Sorry!

The US law recognizes three kinds of binding international agreements, namely treaties, executive agreements, and congressional-executive agreements. Is the UN Charter a treaty, an executive agreement, or a CEA from the point of view of the US constitutional law?

An executive agreement since it isn't a treaty. The US Senate just endorsed it.

And Colin Powel told the Council, don't sign onto 1441 UNLESS YOU"LL SUPPORT the 2nd Resolution. France, Germany, and Russia ended that so the US and our allies took care of it anyway by USING PAST RESOLUTIONS! Are you that dumb upstairs not to figure this all out for yourself?



They were still FIRING AT BRITISH AND AMERICAN PLANES!!!! That in and of itself is in violation of the Cease-fire. That is also a cause for Self-Defense. Apparently your not grasping this subject.

Now how is enforcing 17 UN Resolutions a violation of International Law? How is going to war after a violation in the Cease-fire a violation of International Law? I'll tell you, IT DOESN'T!

You just don't get it. And I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. Go ask your introduction to politics teacher. :rolleyes: :headbang:

You just don't get it. And I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. Go ask your introduction to politics teacher. :rolleyes: :headbang:

HAHAHA!!! Now that's rich. Very very rich.

You can't explain it because you can't. I have you in a barrel and I'm starting to enjoy this.

Keep in mind the Constitution says we don't have to console with the United Nations before we take any actions the Government deems fit. The United Nations thinks they can control us, but they can't. We don't need UN approval for anything. You wonder why the UN didn't want us to invade Iraq? Check out the Oil for Food Scandal and try to trace all the money that went to kickbacks to top UN Officials by Saddam Hussein himself. He was trying to pay off the UN so they would eventually leave him alone forever and re start his weapons programs which are in hiding underground in Syria... The UN Weapons Inspectors were paid off. That's why they never found anything, they knew about Saddam shipping the weapons to Syria. Saddam knew his time was also coming...

Go ahead and say it's an illegal war, but think about all the people he killed in his own country for dissagreeing with him. What is so different between what Hussein did and what Hitler did to the Jews and other people who got in the way of the Holocaust? No difference at all. It's all because we have left wing nutcases who will defend a human rights violator like Hussein, even though they claim to stand up for human rights.

HAHAHA!!! Now that's rich. Very very rich.

You can't explain it because you can't. I have you in a barrel and I'm starting to enjoy this.


I can explain it just fine. But I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you, because you're rationalizing the facts. It's just not worth it to me. I don't believe you are worth my time & effort. But I did give you quite a few chances. Cya, have a nice day.

Keep in mind the Constitution says we don't have to console with the United Nations before we take any actions the Government deems fit. The United Nations thinks they can control us, but they can't. We don't need UN approval for anything. You wonder why the UN didn't want us to invade Iraq? Check out the Oil for Food Scandal and try to trace all the money that went to kickbacks to top UN Officials by Saddam Hussein himself. He was trying to pay off the UN so they would eventually leave him alone forever and re start his weapons programs which are in hiding underground in Syria... The UN Weapons Inspectors were paid off. That's why they never found anything, they knew about Saddam shipping the weapons to Syria. Saddam knew his time was also coming...

Couldn't have said it any better myself :) You are absolutely right in everything you said. Congratulations my friend.

Go ahead and say it's an illegal war, but think about all the people he killed in his own country for dissagreeing with him. What is so different between what Hussein did and what Hitler did to the Jews and other people who got in the way of the Holocaust? No difference at all. It's all because we have left wing nutcases who will defend a human rights violator like Hussein, even though they claim to stand up for human rights.

Once again, you are correct.

*hands you a cookie*

Sorry!



An executive agreement since it isn't a treaty. The US Senate just endorsed it.
You're deliberately misleading us, Corneliu. The US Senate never 'endorses' the executive agreements - neither the Senate nor the Congress as a whole is involved in concluding sole executive agreements. The US Congress as a whole, however, may vote upon the international agreement, thereby making it a CEA.

In the United States the word 'treaty' is reserved for international agreements that are made 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate' (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution).

In July 1945 the US Senate did just that - it voted upon the UN Charter, giving Mr Truman its 'advice and consent' in a manner which was explicitly reserved in the US Constitution for international treaties.

I can explain it just fine. But I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you, because you're rationalizing the facts. It's just not worth it to me.

Sorry, but I support the use of force to enforce those resolutions that Saddam violated. I support the use of force do to his violation of the Cease-Fire. This is all perfectly legal in the eyes of International Law.

believe you are worth my time & effort. But I did give you quite a few chances. Cya, have a nice day.

Have a nice day. Hope to debate with ya again soon :D

Thank You Cornileu. The Left Wing of the world has their heads too far up their you know what to stop and smell the rotten trash that was Saddam Hussein.

You're deliberately misleading us, Corneliu. The US Senate never 'endorses' the executive agreements - neither the Senate nor the Congress as a whole is involved in concluding sole executive agreements. The US Congress as a whole, however, may vote upon the international agreement, thereby making it a CEA.

In the United States the word 'treaty' is reserved for international agreements that are made 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate' (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution).

In July 1945 the US Senate did just that - it voted upon the UN Charter, giving Mr Truman its 'advice and consent' in a manner which was explicitly reserved in the US Constitution for international treaties.

But the UN Charter is not a treaty Olantia. I've already explained what the UN is. Its an organization with defined set of rules. It also has different departments within it that have their own sections in the UN Charter. Therefore, its a business statement. The US Senate just approved of us to be a part of it but its not a treaty.

But the UN Charter is not a treaty Olantia. I've already explained what the UN is. Its an organization with defined set of rules. It also has different departments within it that have their own sections in the UN Charter. Therefore, its a business statement. The US Senate just approved of us to be a part of it but its not a treaty.
As a matter of fact, it ratified it in a manner explicitly reserved for international treaties. Do you want to say that Mr Truman and the senators of 1945 were ignorant of the Constitution?

The UN Is far from a treaty. The UN is just a tactical Orginization much like NATO. A treaty is the Treaty of Versailles. Or the Kyoto Treaty in which Clinton sent Billions of dollars in aide and nuclear fuel rods to North Korea. Look at the mess we have now...

Thank You Cornileu. The Left Wing of the world has their heads too far up their you know what to stop and smell the rotten trash that was Saddam Hussein.

Saddam did alot of bad things, that for sure. He also violated UN Resolutions and a cease-fire. To me, that is unexcusable. To bad the UN is dumb to let him get away with it. I am proud that Bush finally took care of it as did our allies in arms. I detest the French Government and the Russian and German governments too for letting Hussein get away with everything.

The people here need to understand that under International Law, the US did the right thing by going in there under the old UN resolutions that were still in effect that the UN neglected to enforce. This is a legal war in every since of the word no matter what the liberal wing says about it.

The UN Is far from a treaty. The UN is just a tactical Orginization much like NATO. A treaty is the Treaty of Versailles. Or the Kyoto Treaty in which Clinton sent Billions of dollars in aide and nuclear fuel rods to North Korea. Look at the mess we have now...

Well Kyoto was never ratified so we don't have to follow it :p

As for NATO, NATO is a treaty by definition. North Atlantic TREATY Organization.

Well Kyoto was never ratified so we don't have to follow it :p

As for NATO, NATO is a treaty by definition. North Atlantic TREATY Organization.
But the UN Charter was ratified, wasn't it? ;)

As a matter of fact, it ratified it in a manner explicitly reserved for international treaties. Do you want to say that Mr Truman and the senators of 1945 were ignorant of the Constitution?

Nope wont say it however, I at least know the difference between a Charter (The UN) and a Treaty (NATO)

The UN Is far from a treaty. The UN is just a tactical Orginization much like NATO. A treaty is the Treaty of Versailles. Or the Kyoto Treaty in which Clinton sent Billions of dollars in aide and nuclear fuel rods to North Korea. Look at the mess we have now...
The Kyoto Treaty was not about North Korea at all, IIRC.

But the UN Charter was ratified, wasn't it? ;)

Its not a treaty. Period.

For anyone who wanted to know, YES, it's a treaty! All international laws are if a country is a signatory member. This is high school civics class stuff people.

In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year.

The Kyoto Treaty was not about North Korea at all, IIRC.

He ran two things together Olantia.

For anyone who wanted to know, YES, it's a treaty! All international laws are if a country is a signatory member. This is high school civics class stuff people.

Nice quote. Nowhere in there do I see the word Treaty though.

Nope wont say it however, I at least know the difference between a Charter (The UN) and a Treaty (NATO)
That difference escaped Mr Truman and 89 senators, I suppose?

That difference escaped Mr Truman and 89 senators, I suppose?

He doesn't know what he's talking about. Trust me!

For anyone who wanted to know, YES, it's a treaty! All international laws are if a country is a signatory member. This is high school civics class stuff people.
Moreover, the UN Charter is the supreme international treaty (pursuant to Article 103).

He doesn't know what he's talking about. Trust me!

I know what I'm talking about more than what you know what your talking about Xanaz.

That difference escaped Mr Truman and 89 senators, I suppose?

I doubt it escaped them but this is by no means a treaty. For one, no where in the Charter does it mention the word treaty. For another, its not even billed as a treaty. If it was a treaty, it would be mentioned somewhere in the body or title and its not in either place.

I doubt it escaped them but this is by no means a treaty. For one, no where in the Charter does it mention the word treaty. For another, its not even billed as a treaty. If it was a treaty, it would be mentioned somewhere in the body or title and its not in either place.
You're very wrong, Corneliu, and your statement is no conventional wisdom.

The UN Charter is not an executive agreement - the manner of its adoption was different.

The UN Charter is not a CEA by the same reason.

The UN Charter is an international treaty even according to your Constitution. It was ratified by the US Senate back in 1945.

'Article 2

Use of terms

1. For the purposes of the present Convention: (a) “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; (b) “ratification”, “acceptance”, “approval” and “accession” mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty...' (The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties)

'A treaty is a binding agreement under international law concluded by subjects of international law, namely states and international organizations. Treaties can be called by many names: treaties, international agreements, protocols, covenants, conventions, exchanges of letters, exchanges of notes, etc.; however all of these are equally treaties, and the rules are the same regardless of what the treaty is called.' (Wikipedia)

Proclamation of United Nations Charter and Statute of the International Court of Justice

BY PRESIDENT TRUMAN, OCTOBER 31, 1945

WHEREAS the Charter of the United Nations, with the Statute of the International Court of Justice annexed thereto, was formulated at the United Nations Conference on International Organization and was signed in San Francisco on June 26,1945 by the Plenipotentiaries of the United States of America and the respective Plenipotentiaries of forty-nine other Governments, and was signed in Washington on October 15,1945 by the Plenipotentiary of one other Government, the original of which Charter, with annexed Statute, in the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish languages, as certified by the Department of State of the United States of America, is word for word as follows:

[Charter and statute printed above.]

AND WHEREAS the Senate of the United States of America by their Resolution of July 28 (legislative day of July 9), 1945, two-thirds of . the Senators present concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification of the said Charter, with annexed Statute;

AND WHEREAS the said Charter, with annexed Statute, was duly ratified by the President of the United States of America on August 8, 1945, in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and consent of the Senate;

AND WHEREAS it is provided by paragraph 3 of Article 110 of the said Charter that the Charter shall come into force upon the deposit of ratifications by the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, and by a majority of the other signatory states, and that a protocol of the ratifications deposited shall thereupon be drawn up by the Government of the United States of America;

AND WHEREAS the Secretary of State of the United States of America signed on October 24,1945 a protocol of deposit of ratifications of the Charter of the United Nations stating that the requirements of the said paragraph 3 of Article 110 with respect to the coming into force of the said Charter have been fulfilled by the deposit of instruments of ratification of the said Charter by the following states:

the Republic of China on September 28,1945, France on August 31, 1945, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on October 24,1945, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on October 20,1945, and the United States of America on August 8,1945; and by rgentina on September 24,1945, Brazil on September 21,1945, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic on October 24, 1945, Chile on October 11, 1945, Cuba on October 15,1945, Czechoslovakia on October 19, 1945, Denmark on October 9, 1945, the Dominican Republic on September 4,1945, Egypt on October 22,1945, El Salvador on September 26, 1945, Haiti on September 27, 1945, Iran on October 16, 1945, Lebanon on October 15, 1945, Luxembourg on October 17, 1945, New Zealand on September l9, 1945, Nicaragua on September 6, 1945, Paraguay on October 12, 1945, the Philippine Commonwealth on October 11, 1945, Poland on October 24, 1945, Saudi Arabia on October 18, 1945, Syria on October 19, 1945, Turkey on September 28, 1945, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on October 24, 1945, and Yugoslavia on October 19, 1945;

Now, THEREFORE, be it known that I, Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and make public the said Charter of the United Nations, with the Statute of the International Court of Justice annexed thereto, to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith, on and from the twenty-fourth day of October, one thousand nine hundred forty-five, by the United States of America and by the citizens of the United States of America and all other persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be annexed.

DONE at the city of Washington this thirty-first day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred forty-five

[SEAL] and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred seventieth.

HARRY S TRUMAN

By the President:

JAMES F BYRNES,

Secretary of State

Very nice. I like it. Very stirring. Your point?

And after looking at it, I don't see the word Treaty anywhere :D

Very nice. I like it. Very stirring. Your point?
My point has already been made...

Very nice. I like it. Very stirring. Your point?

And after looking at it, I don't see the word Treaty anywhere :D
How about looking at your Constitution, Corneliu?

I never seen the UN Charter not a treaty argument before. Usually one sees that the Supreme Law of the US is the Constitution and that the US constitution specifically designates the power to declare war upon the US Congress, any treaty made under the US consitution cannot change the consitution thus the power to declare war remains with the US congress regardless of the text of any treaty. A treaty, or any other law, may not violate the US constitution - usually where a section of the law violates the constitution only that section is deemed unacceptable and invalidated. Thus when the US senate voted to accept the UN Charter, they only had the power to accept those portions of it which did not conflict with the US Consitution (ie, congress retained the power to declare war), and only conditionally accepted those portions of the charter not in conflict with the US constitution and obligated the US only to following those portions of the UN Charter not in conflict with the US Constitution.

At least this is the most common argument I've heard on the issue. One could also argue that the US Senate did not have the power to ratify the UN Charter (as it violates the US Constitution) and that the ratification itself was illegal, thus the UN Charter is not in fact a treaty the US has ratified (seen that argument too, usually however only the unconstitutional portions of a congressional act are invaldated).

This is a summary of the usual argument I've seen on the issue and not an endorsement of it.

I never seen the UN Charter not a treaty argument before. Usually one sees that the Supreme Law of the US is the Constitution and that the US constitution specifically designates the power to declare war upon the US Congress, any treaty made under the US consitution cannot change the consitution thus the power to declare war remains with the US congress regardless of the text of any treaty. A treaty, or any other law, may not violate the US constitution - usually where a section of the law violates the constitution only that section is deemed unacceptable and invalidated. Thus when the US senate voted to accept the UN Charter, they only had the power to accept those portions of it which did not conflict with the US Consitution (ie, congress retained the power to declare war), and only conditionally accepted those portions of the charter not in conflict with the US constitution and obligated the US only to following those portions of the UN Charter not in conflict with the US Constitution.

At least this is the most common argument I've heard on the issue. One could also argue that the US Senate did not have the power to ratify the UN Charter (as it violates the US Constitution) and that the ratification itself was illegal, thus the UN Charter is not in fact a treaty the US has ratified (seen that argument too, usually however only the unconstitutional portions of a congressional act are invaldated).

This is a summary of the usual argument I've seen on the issue and not an endorsement of it.
That's correct. However, the UN Charter was accepted without reservation, 'to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith'.

Also, the Supreme Court of the United States has yet to invalidate any part of the UN Charter (or any other international treaty, for that matter). It would make an interesting case...

It is my understanding that in terms of legal importance, international treaties are second only to the Bible as the Supreme Law of the land in America.
Very funny. Ha. Ha. Ha. :rolleyes:

That's correct. However, the UN Charter was accepted without reservation, 'to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith'.

Also, the Supreme Court of the United States has yet to invalidate any part of the UN Charter (or any other international treaty, for that matter). It would make an interesting case...
True for the most part, and what I like also, is that the US Consitution reserves for US courts the right to make that determination. As for the reservation part, well the senate debate on ratification makes that unclear. There actually was an attempt to scuttle the adoption of the UN Charter in the US Senate, but it failed mostly due to the argument made by supporters that the UN Charter neither bypassed not limited congressional authority to declare war, thus despite making a formal notification of reservation it was clear that the intent of the US Senate in consenting to the UN Charter was to reserve the power to declare war to the US Congress (within the terms of the UN Enabling Act). Note that it is a fairly general principal of jurisprudence that a contract (treaty) is only binding insofar as both parties understand it to mean the same thing, the good old "meeting of minds" principal. Thus, if the US adopted the UN Charter believeing (as is evident from the Senate debate) that the US Congress retained the power to declare war and the other signatories adopted it believeing otherwise, the UN Charter does not consitute a valid contract (treaty) insofar as the US is concerned, reservations beings stated formally or not. The principal of mutual assent is not clear in internal law at this point in time, but is in US law and I'm sure it would factor into any US case on the subject. Intresting the US Supreme Court has ruled that treaties are only binding on the US as much as an act of congress (late 1890s in the head money cases, to lazy to look up a citation) and may be abandoned/modified by the US Congress with an ordinary act of legislation (like the Resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq), thus the US in adopting the UN Charter only bound itself insofar as the US Congress chose to follow it (under US law), a whole different tact on the concept of mutual assent.

That's correct. However, the UN Charter was accepted without reservation, 'to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith'.

I love that phrase may be observed. LOL

Also, the Supreme Court of the United States has yet to invalidate any part of the UN Charter (or any other international treaty, for that matter). It would make an interesting case...

Actually, I agree that it would make a very interesting case in the US Supreme Court.

Why should we even bother with the United Nations. They're corrupt and have served their purpose a long time ago. They don't help anyone at all. No one in here has even bothered to try and deny what the UN did with the Oil For Food Program that Saddam Hussein gave kickbacks to members of the United Nations Security Council. He gave kickbacks which when it's all said and done will be close to being a Billion plus dollars, so he could be let loose again to do what ever he wanted. The United Nations is pathetic.

You people who support the UN and their supposed Mission to help the world are blind to the fact they hate America. They would like nothing more to have the world abide by ONE Governing Body. In case you don't know that's what is called The New World Order. Some of you people are wiping in the mud the blood and tears that were shed by our founding Fathers to make us a completely Sovreign Nation who doesn't answer to anyone. This is appalling. The UN Charter is nothing more than Toilet Paper for The US Constitution to wipe it's ass with. The Constitution was set up to be the real law of the land. Not what a bunch of other countries who don't care what America's interests are. The UN was supposed to help thwart evil dictators like Hussein because of ones like Hitler and Mussolini. They don't do that anymore. They seem to think they are there own government and don't have to answer to the countries that fund them. The United States is one of the biggest cash cows for the UN. They have their headquarters in OUR country. Our laws are not decided in the UN. Our laws are decided in the US Congress by the people who WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vote for.

I don't vote for the French Ambassador to the UN. So why should he or any other Ambassador for another country have any say so in American policy? The United States of America is a sovreign nation. We answer to no one else but ourselves. We elect our own represenatives. They make the laws based upon their beliefs. They take the actions they deem necessary for our security, our ecnomoy and our general way of life. The rest of the world can't get over that. We can do things on our own without the help or OK of anyone else.

I love that phrase may be observed. LOL



Actually, I agree that it would make a very interesting case in the US Supreme Court.
Yeah.. just like that - 'The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.'

Poor guy in a morning coat... He doesn't know what awaits him. :rolleyes:

Yeah.. just like that - 'The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.'

And they did determine that time. :D

Poor guy in a morning coat... He doesn't know what awaits him. :rolleyes:

:confused:

And they did determine that time. :D
So, they 'must' determine, or they 'may' determine?

Or can they wash their hands and leave the US without an Election Day? ;)

:confused:
Corneliu, what a shame... :)

The Solicitor General typically wears a morning coat when arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

So, they 'must' determine, or they 'may' determine?

Or can they wash their hands and leave the US without an Election Day? ;)

They may determine and they did determine what you were saying earlier.

Corneliu, what a shame... :)

The Solicitor General typically wears a morning coat when arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

Who said anything about it being the Solicitor General?

They may determine and they did determine what you were saying earlier.



Who said anything about it being the Solicitor General?


Who argues for the US government in the Supreme Court?

Who argues for the US government in the Supreme Court?

Any lawyer that they employ :D

Any lawyer that they employ :D
Do you suppose that some cousin Vinny will be arguing for the US government in the UN Charter case? :eek:

Do you suppose that some cousin Vinny will be arguing for the US government in the UN Charter case? :eek:

Someone here couldn't take a joke

Someone here couldn't take a joke
Here, in Russia, we have a saying - 'Every joke has a fraction of joke in it.' :D

Why should we even bother with the United Nations. They're corrupt and have served their purpose a long time ago. They don't help anyone at all. (Remainder cut because I don't need the details)

So leave. Seriously. If your country in general feels that way - and I don't know whether it does or not - petition the government to leave the United Nations. I don't see what's so hard about that - did the UN wire your country up with explosives to keep you from leaving? Make you give them all of your money for safe keeping? Do they have hostages? I sincerely doubt it - if they did, you'd've gone to war with them already. So why haven't you asked your government to leave yet? Isn't it supposed to be a government for the people?

And if they don't listen to you, follow the advice of your Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing the unalienable rights such as Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If the UN charter is a binding treaty, how comes none of the signatories abide by it. Further, why does the UN no automatically impose some form of sanction upon members who violate it.

It's not a treaty, it's a set of aspirational principles. Indeed, most of the signatories are in some type of violation when they sign it. It is ridiculous at this point to assert that the U.N charter could form a part of any nations jus gentium at this late date, when it has lain in a state of desetude for sixty years.

Further, if indeed it is binding, why are nations that blatantly do not conform to charter standards allowed to join? And why is there no pressure placed upon them to reform after they have joined. It is absurd to say that the UN charter restrains any nation in any way whatsoever.

Who argues for the US government in the Supreme Court?

Depends upon what is being argued. I should imagine this would be handled by the state department.

If the UN charter is a binding treaty, how comes none of the signatories abide by it. Further, why does the UN no automatically impose some form of sanction upon members who violate it.

...
What international treaty does 'automatically impose some form of sanction upon members who violate it'?

What international treaty does 'automatically impose some form of sanction upon members who violate it'?


Lots of them do. Tons of the EU ones to begin with. WTO, Nafta (though in truth those are agreements). But that's beside the point.

In any case, why hasn't the UN done anything about the other violators? Why does it allow signatories that are in blatant violation to join without any promise of reform.

It seems that the charter only applies to the US. And only within the last five years. Ridiculous. If indeed it was intended to be binding something would have been done about Turkey, China, USSR, &c. thirty years ago. This whole notion that it now binds a nation in its actions is preposterous.

...
It's not a treaty, it's a set of aspirational principles. Indeed, most of the signatories are in some type of violation when they sign it. It is ridiculous at this point to assert that the U.N charter could form a part of any nations jus gentium at this late date, when it has lain in a state of desetude for sixty years.

...
'The President ... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..' - US Constitution.

'...the Senate of the United States of America by their Resolution of July 28 (legislative day of July 9), 1945, two-thirds of . the Senators present concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification of the said Charter, with annexed Statute...' - Mr Truman's Proclamation.

What about the Alien Tort Statute? It was a (unused) part of the US law for 190 years.

Lots of them do. Tons of the EU ones to begin with. WTO, Nafta (though in truth those are agreements). But that's beside the point.

In any case, why hasn't the UN done anything about the other violators? Why does it allow signatories that are in blatant violation to join without any promise of reform.

It seems that the charter only applies to the US. And only within the last five years. Ridiculous. If indeed it was intended to be binding something would have been done about Turkey, China, USSR, &c. thirty years ago. This whole notion that it now binds a nation in its actions is preposterous.
The UN hasn't done anything? The peacekeepers who died while trying to help were doing nothing? I don't think so. I still have on my shoulder a 'button' of smallpox vaccination - though I don't have to be afraid of contracting it.

As a matter of fact, in the first ten years, or so, of the UN existence the admittance to it was quite selective. Then the US-USSR 'do ut des' kicked in - the superpowers stopped blocking allies of the other side.

No, the Charter applies to everyone. To Russia, to Cambodia, to Monaco, to the US... Year 1990 saw a good example of its implementation.

'The President ... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..' - US Constitution.

'...the Senate of the United States of America by their Resolution of July 28 (legislative day of July 9), 1945, two-thirds of . the Senators present concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification of the said Charter, with annexed Statute...' - Mr Truman's Proclamation.

What about the Alien Tort Statute? It was a (unused) part of the US law for 190 years.

I am familiar with the ATSA. It only really operates against private parties who are guilty of transgressing jus cogens. FSA, trumps anything else. (Also prinicples of comity, double actionablity, &c.) It really has little to do with this.

And whatever Mr. Truman thought he was signing, it is render moot by the subsequent actions of UN signitories. Even if it was adopted as a treaty, as no other party has seen fit to abide by it (or at least the majority) throughout its duration it can be considered broken and therefore non-binding.

Finally, even assuming that it was a treaty, it only has the status of domestic federal law, and was therefore "repealed" when the Congress passed legislation allowing the use of force in Iraq. Therefore no international law was broken. (you wouldn't describe withdrawing from the EU as such a violation after all.)

I am familiar with the ATSA. It only really operates against private parties who are guilty of transgressing jus cogens. FSA, trumps anything else. (Also prinicples of comity, double actionablity, &c.) It really has little to do with this.
Of course, it was an example of 'desuetude'.

And whatever Mr. Truman thought he was signing, it is render moot by the subsequent actions of UN signitories. Even if it was adopted as a treaty, as no other party has seen fit to abide by it (or at least the majority) throughout its duration it can be considered broken and therefore non-binding.

Would you mind to quote the relevant part of the law with regard to rendering international treaties moot?

What institution of the US has a legal right to consider the UN Charter broken?

Finally, even assuming that it was a treaty, it only has the status of domestic federal law, and was therefore "repealed" when the Congress passed legislation allowing the use of force in Iraq. Therefore no international law was broken. (you wouldn't describe withdrawing from the EU as such a violation after all.)


Why the UN Charter wasn't 'repealed' by the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 then? Moreover, how do you manage to repeal an international treaty without an explicit statement?

What institution of the US has a legal right to consider the UN Charter broken?

CONGRESS!!! LOL

CONGRESS!!! LOL
The Congress can declare a multiratelal treaty broken? How's that? May be, the Congress can vote to leave the UN?

The Congress can declare a multiratelal treaty broken? How's that? May be, the Congress can vote to leave the UN?

Yea they can do that. Hell it has been voted on before but its always been defeated.

BTW: They are debating to withold UN Funding till they straighten up :p Now that's funny.

Yea they can do that. Hell it has been voted on before but its always been defeated.
You're wrong. The Congress cannot absolve Swaziland or Russia from their obligations under a multilateral treaty.

...

BTW: They are debating to withold UN Funding till they straighten up :p Now that's funny.
I do agree with you on that.

You're wrong. The Congress cannot absolve Swaziland or Riussia from their obligations under a multilateral treaty.

No but they can absolve US of our obligations under a multilateral Treaty :D

I do agree with you on that.

At least we agree on something :p

No but they can absolve US of our obligations under a multilateral Treaty :D
It won't make the UN Charter null and void. Though the UN will have to ask the remaining members for more money.

It won't make the UN Charter null and void. Though the UN will have to ask the remaining members for more money.

As if our money has done any good anyway. We're not even getting our money's worth from this dustbody of an organization.

...

What institution of the US has a legal right to consider the UN Charter broken?
...
I have to admit that my question is nonsensical - a single country cannot make a multilateral international treaty null and void. Even in theory.

The entire point of the Constitution considering treaties to be supreme law most likely comes from a time when the states were more of a confederation of states as opposed to the more central government we have now.

For example, let's say 1787 United States makes a treaty with Spain to NOT trade cotton to the Dutch. Now, let's say the state of Virginia does so anyway regardless of the treaty. The Constitution is given the power to force Virginia to stop doing so, the reason being that the treaty is basically part of federal law that that all of the states must uphold. It would make sense that the intention was to give the power to the Federal government to protect the collective interest of the states on the international stage while keeping the minority of the states in check.

Anyways, I think that given that the form of government is mandated by the Constitution, and that Congress has the power to make treaties, Congress should have the power to absolve our end of the deal as 1) it reflects the collective will of the states which theoretically acts in the nation's best interest and 2) any contract that gives primacy of international law OVER Constitutionally mandated powers and processes would in and of itself violate portions of the Constitution which allows for treaties in the first place.

The entire point of the Constitution considering treaties to be supreme law most likely comes from a time when the states were more of a confederation of states as opposed to the more central government we have now.

For example, let's say 1787 United States makes a treaty with Spain to NOT trade cotton to the Dutch. Now, let's say the state of Virginia does so anyway regardless of the treaty. The Constitution is given the power to force Virginia to stop doing so, the reason being that the treaty is basically part of federal law that that all of the states must uphold. It would make sense that the intention was to give the power to the Federal government to protect the collective interest of the states on the international stage while keeping the minority of the states in check.

Anyways, I think that given that the form of government is mandated by the Constitution, and that Congress has the power to make treaties, Congress should have the power to absolve our end of the deal as 1) it reflects the collective will of the states which theoretically acts in the nation's best interest and 2) any contract that gives primacy of international law OVER Constitutionally mandated powers and processes would in and of itself violate portions of the Constitution which allows for treaties in the first place.

Quite so. The US has at its disposal two methods to withdraw from the UN Charter.

1) The Congress may repeal the UN Charter and the UN Participation Act by means of adopting legislation necessary for that purpose.

2) The Supreme Court may invalidate the UN Charter and the UN Participation Act as unconstitutional.

Neither has been done.

P.S. Of course, the UN General Assebly may expel any country from the UN upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Do you agree with my appraisal, Corneliu?

Quite so. The US has at its disposal two methods to withdraw from the UN Charter.

1) The Congress may repeal the UN Charter and the UN Participation Act by means of adopting legislation necessary for that purpose.

2) The Supreme Court may invalidate the UN Charter and the UN Participation Act as unconstitutional.

Neither has been done.

P.S. Of course, the UN General Assebly may expel any country from the UN upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

If your talking about this..... yea but you also have to remember that the US never gave up its right to wage war on another nation.

If your talking about this..... yea but you also have to remember that the US never gave up its right to wage war on another nation.
Don't change the subject so quick, Corneliu. We are talking about the legal status of the UN Charter now, not about its contents.

Do you agree that a single country cannot make an international treaty null and void?

Don't change the subject so quick, Corneliu. We are talking about the legal status of the UN Charter now, not about its contents.

I always have stated that it has legal status just that it wasn't a treaty. Don't try to confuse my words.

Do you agree that a single country cannot make an international treaty null and void?

I'm wondering where you ever got this from

I always have stated that it has legal status just that it wasn't a treaty. Don't try to confuse my words.

Under US domestic law, international agreements having legal status comprise: 1) treaties, 2) executive agreements, 3)congressional-executive agreements. There are no other kinds of international agreements.

The UN Charter is not an executive agreement nor a CEA. Do you agree with that, Corneliu?



I'm wondering where you ever got this from
Common sense, my friend.

Olantia: The Congress can declare a multiratelal treaty broken? How's that? May be, the Congress can vote to leave the UN?

Corneliu: Yea they can do that. Hell it has been voted on before but its always been defeated.

Olantia: You're wrong. The Congress cannot absolve Swaziland or Russia from their obligations under a multilateral treaty.

Corneliu: No but they can absolve US of our obligations under a multilateral Treaty

So, does any country in the world, except Swaziland and Russia, have the power to absolve them from their commitments under a multilateral treaty?

Under US domestic law, international agreements having legal status comprise: 1) treaties, 2) executive agreements, 3)congressional-executive agreements. There are no other kinds of international agreements.

The UN Charter is not an executive agreement nor a CEA. Do you agree with that, Corneliu?

The UN is not a treaty Olantia. No where in the document does it say it and nowhere in that other thing you posted said that it was a treaty.


Common sense, my friend.

Olantia: The Congress can declare a multiratelal treaty broken? How's that? May be, the Congress can vote to leave the UN?

Corneliu:Yea they can do that. Hell it has been voted on before but its always been defeated.

Olantia: You're wrong. The Congress cannot absolve Swaziland or Russia from their obligations under a multilateral treaty.

I'm right in what I said.

Corneliu: No but they can absolve US of our obligations under a multilateral Treaty

Yep, said it right here! LOL

So, does any country in the world, except Swaziland and Russia, have the power to absolve them from their commitments under a multilateral treaty?

I suggest you reread what I said.

The UN is not a treaty Olantia. No where in the document does it say it and nowhere in that other thing you posted said that it was a treaty.
Well... Let's go back to my question. Is the UN Charter a treaty, an executive agreement, or a CEA?


Yep, said it right here! LOL



I suggest you reread what I said.
So, the US cannot absolve Russia from our obligations under the UN Charter?

If the UN charter is a binding treaty, how comes none of the signatories abide by it. Further, why does the UN no automatically impose some form of sanction upon members who violate it.
Basically, because any enforcement action must be approved by the 5 permanent members of the UNSC which are the USA, Russia, France, the UK and China.

If your talking about this..... yea but you also have to remember that the US never gave up its right to wage war on another nation.
I'd like to see the reservations or the interpretive declarations stating so (if they exist). The US agreed to be bound by the UN Charter and, unless it made such reservations or interpretive declarations, it agreed to delegate certain powers to the UN. But then again, the US is a permanent member of the UNSC, no one can force them to abide by the UN Charter

I'd like to see the reservations or the interpretive declarations stating so (if they exist). The US agreed to be bound by the UN Charter and, unless it made such reservations or interpretive declarations, it agreed to delegate certain powers to the UN. But then again, the US is a permanent member of the UNSC, no one can force them to abide by the UN Charter

Apparently, the UN doesn't care if nations follow it or not!

*points to all the wars and genocides the UN failed to stop*

Corneliu, welcome back to the thread!

So, won't you answer my questions?

Corneliu, welcome back to the thread!

So, won't you answer my questions?

I did answer your questions Olantia.

I did answer your questions Olantia.
Oh really? Maybe I've missed your reply. Would you mind to repeat it...

Well... is the UN Charter a treaty, an executive agreement, or a CEA?

Oh really? Maybe I've missed your reply. Would you mind to repeat it...

Well... is the UN Charter a treaty, an executive agreement, or a CEA?

Since I already told you it ain't a treaty.... that leaves two other options in your viewpoint doesn't it?

The US Senate still has to vote if the US is going to be a part of an Organization (The UN, NAFTA, OAS) or a Treaty (NATO)

Since I already told you it ain't a treaty.... that leaves two other options in your viewpoint doesn't it?

...
No, it doesn't. Thankfully I don't have to take your word as a kind of supreme truth.

So, is the UN Charter, from your point of view, an executive agreement or a congressional-executive agreement?

The US Senate still has to vote if the US is going to be a part of an Organization (The UN, NAFTA, OAS) or a Treaty (NATO)
Would you mind to quote a relevant portion of the Constitution or a federal law? The powers pertaining to the US Senate only are clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

The Constitutution says nothing upon the US Senate having to vote if the US is going to be a part of Organization.

Moreover, you are trying to mislead me. The OAS Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty were adopted as international treaties (the Senate voted upon it, as it had voted upon the UN Charter), NAFTA was adopted as a congressional-executive agreement (i.e. the Senate and the House of Representatives, not the Senate by itself, passed it by simple majorities).

It is my understanding that in terms of legal importance, international treaties are second only to the Bible as the Supreme Law of the land in America.

Treaties are subordinate only the the US Constitution. (as are laws).

Statues and Treaties remain on equal footing (both being inferior to the Constitution; as foundation of power).

The Bible possesses no supremecy, by law.

UN charter is a treaty, for all intensive purposes. However, contrary to popular opinion, treaties are SUBSERVIENT to the Constitution. The UN Charter has articles, already, which are "illegal" from the constitutional point of view.

First is the "International Court of Justice"... which violated Supreme Court supremecy (granted by constitutional authority); and is thus "unconstitutional, and non-binding" upon the United States.

Second is the United Nations Income Tax; which violates the 16th Amendment, and congressional power to tax incomes.

Third is the "International Organizations Immunities Act"; which violates US Constitution granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction.

Treaties cannot change or Amend the US Constitution, because treaties are INFERIOR to the US Constitution, in matters of law.

Tekania, things are somewhat more complicated... there is an interesting commentary here - http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/article02/10.html

Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power

A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties ''are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.'' As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated. It does not appear that the Court has ever held a treaty unconstitutional, although there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations. In fact, there would be little argument with regard to the general point were it not for certain dicta in Justice Holmes' opinion in Missouri v. Holland. ''Acts of Congress,'' he said, ''are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention.'' Although he immediately followed this passage with a cautionary ''[w]e do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power . . . ,'' the Justice's language and the holding by which it appeared that the reserved rights of the States could be invaded through the treaty power led in the 1950s to an abortive effort to amend the Constitution to restrict the treaty power.

Controversy over the Holmes language apparently led Justice Black in Reid v. Covert to deny that the difference in language of the supremacy clause with regard to statutes and with regard to treaties was relevant to the status of treaties as inferior to the Constitution. ''There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in 'pursuance' of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition--to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.''

So, there is a basis for a view that the international treaties to which the US is a party are co-equal with the Constitution. However, I am sure that in a hypothetical case upon the constitutionality of some international treaty the majority of the Supreme Court will reject the 'super-Holmes' approach in favour of Black's position.

UN charter is a treaty, for all intensive purposes. However, contrary to popular opinion, treaties are SUBSERVIENT to the Constitution. The UN Charter has articles, already, which are "illegal" from the constitutional point of view.

First is the "International Court of Justice"... which violated Supreme Court supremecy (granted by constitutional authority); and is thus "unconstitutional, and non-binding" upon the United States.

...
Thank you for agreeing that the poor Charter is a treaty. :)

You've made an interesting point about the International Court of Justice. Between 1946 and 1984 the US accepted its compulsory juridistion. Were then any attempts to challenge that state of affairs in the federal courts?

Tekania, things are somewhat more complicated... there is an interesting commentary here - http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/article02/10.html



So, there is a basis for a view that the international treaties to which the US is a party are co-equal with the Constitution. However, I am sure that in a hypothetical case upon the constitutionality of some international treaty the majority of the Supreme Court will reject the 'super-Holmes' approach in favour of Black's position.

They would. The constitution grants treaties their power (and thus their power is derived FROM the constitution). Which is exactly how Justice Black saw the issue (and the normal language of use in the Constitution persuant thereunto). It's the normal idea of supremecy, and derivation of power.

All governmental acts are bound by, and exist only in, the social contract which exists between the people of the several states, and the Federal Government (who has sole authority to make treaty). Thus, no treaty can "violate" that contract, and be held legal by proper authority in contest (the court); any more than any law can "violate" that contract, and be held legal
by proper authority in contest (the courts). The Black position is what most certainly would be held, if such a treaty were to arrise

Corneliu, I think it's time for you to concede defeat... or to try to answer what kind of executive agreement the UN Charter is.

I can even help you - the UN Charter is not an executive agreement. Nor it is a CEA.

Why won't you admit that you've been wrong, Corneliu?

Corneliu, I think it's time for you to concede defeat... or to try to answer what kind of executive agreement the UN Charter is.

I can even help you - the UN Charter is not an executive agreement. Nor it is a CEA.

Why won't you admit that you've been wrong, Corneliu?

Because I'm still waiting on proof that this is a Treaty and not a charter.

Because I'm still waiting on proof that this is a Treaty and not a charter.

Corneliu, I’ll spell everything out for you now.


1) The UN Charter is an international agreement.

An international agreement it is. I have not said anything different.

I am in full agreement with you on that.


2)The UN Charter has legal status under US law.

I always have stated that it has legal status just that it wasn't a treaty.

Well, it has. But what on Earth the UN Charter is?

3)The UN Charter is a treaty.

The UN is not a treaty Olantia. No where in the document does it say it and nowhere in that other thing you posted said that it was a treaty.

I beg to differ. Why? I’ll make it clear now.


Under US domestic law, international agreements having legal status comprise: 1) treaties, 2) executive agreements, 3) congressional-executive agreements. There are no other kinds of international agreements.

You have indicated your agreement with that position. Under American law (and we're talking about your domestic law) here is no such kind of an international agreement like 'charter', Corneliu.

However, you persistently avoid the direct answer – what exactly IS the UN Charter. A bit earlier, you were more ‘quick with your fists’ -


An executive agreement since it isn't a treaty. The US Senate just endorsed it.

An executive agreement, Corneliu? When the President of the United States adopts an executive agreement, he doesn’t ask the Senate (or the Congress, for that matter) for any kind of ‘endorsement’.

Although it can be a pure speculation of Olantia…. How can we be sure that Mr Truman didn’t ask the Senate for endorsement in 1945?

Let’s ask Mr Truman himself, shall we? He says in his proclamation that ‘…the Senate of the United States of America by their Resolution of July 28 (legislative day of July 9), 1945, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification of the said Charter, with annexed Statute…’

So, Mr Truman asked the Senate not to endorse the UN Charter, but to give him senatorial advice and consent. He says nothing about the Congress or the House of the Representatives – mark that, Corneliu!

According to the US Constitution, the Senate acts on its own, without the House of Representatives, in four cases only, namely:

1) ‘The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.’ (Article I, Secton 3)

2) ‘But if there should remain two or more [Vice-Presidential candidates in case of the Electoral College deadlock] who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.’ (Article II, Secton 1)

3) ‘He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…’ (Article II, Secton 2)

4) ‘…and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…’ (Article II, Secton 2)


The UN Charter wasn’t impeached, Corneliu.

The UN Charter wasn’t a candidate for VP, Corneliu.

The UN Charter was not an Ambassador, other public Minister or Consul, Judge of the supreme Court, and any other Officer of the United States, for that matter.

We are left with only one option.

President Truman, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, made a Treaty, having provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...


What you say, Corneliu? Refute this if you can.

Thank you for agreeing that the poor Charter is a treaty. :)

You've made an interesting point about the International Court of Justice. Between 1946 and 1984 the US accepted its compulsory juridistion. Were then any attempts to challenge that state of affairs in the federal courts?

No charge has been made... YET, however, it is still possible. Since under Constitutional Provision, the Supreme Court carries "Original Jurisdiction" over the treaty (UN Charter)... And would a case arrise, someone can make charge with the Supreme Court (UN Treaty or no) and nullify it... As of yet, no charge has been levied.... But were one to arrise..... You get the idea...

No charge has been made... YET, however, it is still possible. Since under Constitutional Provision, the Supreme Court carries "Original Jurisdiction" over the treaty (UN Charter)... And would a case arrise, someone can make charge with the Supreme Court (UN Treaty or no) and nullify it... As of yet, no charge has been levied.... But were one to arrise..... You get the idea...
Yeah... possible but unlikely, I'd say. The Supreme Court has yet to invalidate a single international treaty.

Yeah... possible but unlikely, I'd say. The Supreme Court has yet to invalidate a single international treaty.

Yet to, does not mean, can't, however. The President, by advisement of the LEgislature; can make treaty. And the president, by advisement of the legislature can terminate treaty. The same as with statutes.... The Supreme Court has appelate jurisdiction over statutes, but original jurisdiction (by it's Constitutional Authority [which has not been amendment]) over hearing cases over treaty. [And they have, several times over the past 2 centuries]. Yet to actually invalidate one on constitutional grounds.... Not to say that they couldn't if pressed into a case based upon that. The Supreme Court can make determinations over a treaties properiety under law (whether pre 1791 Articles of Confederation; or Post 1791 United States Constitution) since both define the powers of government (including Treaty Provision). So it still falls under supremecy. The Constitution is the supreme law over the united states (derived directly from the people) all others (treaties and statues) are appelate to the people, in nature (possessing authority only by the constitution; and thereby the people). Thus all laws must either meet constitutional standards, are be interpreted by Constitutional standards (Which is how the court, to date, has ruled over treaties; when pressed into contest; reading the treaty in conformity to constitutional authority.

The SCOTUS has ruled as such.


"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions.

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."


"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

It would be interesting to see the US Consitution vs The Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties however. I would be most interested to see if Atricle 27 or Artcile 46 would be applied (provided even that the US Constitution become classifed as "internal law'). Regardless the Vienna Convention post-dates the UN Charter and was not retroactive, so it's applicability is somewhat suspect.

It would be interesting to see the US Consitution vs The Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties however. I would be most interested to see if Atricle 27 or Artcile 46 would be applied (provided even that the US Constitution become classifed as "internal law'). Regardless the Vienna Convention post-dates the UN Charter and was not retroactive, so it's applicability is somewhat suspect.
Well, the US hasn't yet ratified the Vienna Convention, that treaty has been languishing in the Senate for 30+ years. The Vienna convention doesn't apply to the US.

Well, the US hasn't yet ratified the Vienna Convention, that treaty has been languishing in the Senate for 30+ years. The Vienna convention doesn't apply to the US.
Correct on the first (the US hasn't ratified it), but up in the air on the second (doesn't apply to the US).

The Vienna Convention is widely recognized as the international norm for treaties, and as such it is accepted that all treaties conform to it's standards regardless of whether or not the states signing the treaties are signatories to the Convention or not.

It all comes down to you original premises, is the US Constitution supreme over international law, or is international Law superior to the US Constitution. If we accept that International Law trumps internal laws, like the US Consitution, then the mere fact that the US has a Consitution which is incompatable with it's obligations under International Law is meaningless. Likewise, if the US Consitution is supreme, than any obligations under International Law which conflict with the US Constitution cannot be valid, regardless of whether or not they result form the US entering into a treaty or from international norms.

Like I said earlier, it would be interesting to see these 2 views actually duke it out. I suspect that any attempt made to force the US to follow the position that International Law is supreme over the US Constitution, at this point in time, would result in that old standby of international law, one view of international law forcing the other view into submission. But that would still not preclude actual court cases on the issue form occuring beforehand, and those would be interesting. It is a cutting edge area of International Law, the supremacy of International Law, I would be interested in seeing it play out, I'm not sure which side I'd be rooting for, but I'd be interested in watching.

Correct on the first (the US hasn't ratified it), but up in the air on the second (doesn't apply to the US).

The Vienna Convention is widely recognized as the international norm for treaties, and as such it is accepted that all treaties conform to it's standards regardless of whether or not the states signing the treaties are signatories to the Convention or not.

...
Well, how can a country be legally bound by any treaty it has not adopted? The US does not recognize the Vienna Convention as a norm for American treaties.

It all comes down to you original premises, is the US Constitution supreme over international law, or is international Law superior to the US Constitution. If we accept that International Law trumps internal laws, like the US Consitution, then the mere fact that the US has a Consitution which is incompatable with it's obligations under International Law is meaningless. Likewise, if the US Consitution is supreme, than any obligations under International Law which conflict with the US Constitution cannot be valid, regardless of whether or not they result form the US entering into a treaty or from international norms.

US law treats international treaties as part of its 'law of the land', so they are subject to judicial review or denunciation by means of enacting necessary legislation. I suppose that any attempt to change this situation and assert the supremacy of international law will get cool welcome from the Supreme Court.

It's a pity that Corneliu has stopped answering me. Nevertheless, I'd like him to explain some things.

Its not a treaty. Period.

Your proof?

An executive agreement since it isn't a treaty. The US Senate just endorsed it.

If it was a treaty, it would be mentioned somewhere in the body or title and its not in either place.

Well, if it is an executive agreement… Show me the words ‘executive agreement’ in the body of the text.

The US Senate still has to vote if the US is going to be a part of an Organization

There is no legal basis for this statement. It contradicts the US Constitution, isn't it?

*SNIP*

You have yet to show me proof that it is a treaty.

You have yet to show me proof that it is a treaty.
The US Constitution is a biased sourse, I suppose?

Wouldn't you take care and try to answer my questions?

The US Constitution is a biased sourse, I suppose?

No it ain't but you haven't shown me proof that it is, infact, a treaty.

Wouldn't you take care and try to answer my questions?

Only until you answer mine.

No it ain't but you haven't shown me proof that it is, infact, a treaty.



Only until you answer mine.
What are your QUESTIONS, darling?

What are your QUESTIONS, darling?

1. Don't ever call me darling. Only my gf and call me that.

2. Prove that this is a treaty. Show me where in the Charter of the United Nations (notice the word CHARTER) that signifies this as a treaty.

1. Don't ever call me darling. Only my gf and call me that.

2. Prove that this is a treaty. Show me where in the Charter of the United Nations (notice the word CHARTER) that signifies this as a treaty.
1. Don't teach me manners.

2. This is a demand, not a question.

'Still, I, ll try to answer you - after a little clarification...

Are we talking about the definition of the treaty under American or international law? I am at a loss.

OFF: I'd like to know whether the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is a federal law, or it is not?

1. Don't teach me manners.

1. Don't tell me what to do.

2. This is a demand, not a question.

I've asked you the question before.

'Still, I, ll try to answer you - after a little clarification...

Are we talking about the definition of the treaty under American or international law? I am at a loss.

Make it easy. Both! However, since this is a CHARTER because it establishes the United Nations organization (hence the title The Charter of the United Nations) it cannot, by definition, be a treaty.

OFF: I'd like to know whether the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is a federal law, or it is not?

As soon as I look into it, I'll tell ya.

The UN Charter is a treaty under American law - it was submitted by President for senatorial advice and consent. No kind of international agreement, other than a treaty, requires this. The proof of this requirement is in the US Constitution.

The UN Charter is a treaty under international law - its definition of the treaty is, indeed, quite broad.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Part I, Article 2

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation

Emphasis mine.

And yes, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is a federal law. You won't find a word such as 'law' in it, however.

The UN Charter is a treaty under American law - it was submitted by President for senatorial advice and consent. No kind of international agreement, other than a treaty, requires this. The proof of this requirement is in the US Constitution.

The UN Charter is a treaty under international law - its definition of the treaty is, indeed, quite broad.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Part I, Article 2

Emphasis mine.

And yes, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is a federal law. You won't find a word such as 'law' in it, however.

Here's a note from a lawyer (Howard Schiffman) that sheds light on whether or not an international treaty outlawing war (as the UN Charter does) is binding on the US.

Although the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, otherwise known as the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, was a binding treaty signed by almost all states in the world at the time, it is very difficult to see it as anything more than a matter of some historical interest and a milestone in the development of the modern international legal framework. The thrust of the document, in effect to outlaw war as an instrument of policy, has been replaced in international law with the UN Charter and the customs and laws of war of the modern era. It is a general principle of law, most notably international law, that a later law prevails over an earlier law. Therefore, its rather sweeping exclusion of force is modified by newer legal obligations and standards. At the same time, the spirit of the Kellogg-Briand treaty lives on in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

Your question implies that because it is a treaty and therefore the "supreme law of the land" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI) it would somehow prevent the US, as a matter of US domestic law, from lawfully deploying force in the exercise of its authority. This is just not so. Even if one were to consider the Kellogg-Briand Treaty to be in force and valid today (a highly speculative proposition) a treaty is equal in dignity and normative rank to federal legislation and inferior to provisions of the Constitution itself. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible use of force, either pursuant to a congressional declaration of war or an authorized use of force by the executive (typically delegated authority by Congress, as in the present legislation pertaining to Iraq) would satisfy the requirements of US domestic law. There are several key federal court decisions and many fine scholarly articles addressing the role of treaties in the US legal system that demonstrate this point.

I will add a historical note -- for all intents and purposes the Kellogg-Briand Pact was repudiated when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland. The free European nations understood the dangers of the moment. The folly and shortsightedness of the Munich Pact left no choice but world war at a dreadful price.


I would also note the definition of treaty:

The Vienna Convention on the Law Treaties defines a "treaty" as "an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law" (article 2(1)(a)). The basic test of whether an instrument is a treaty is whether the parties intend to create legal obligations

Even if something is not called a treaty, if it meets the basic test, it's a treaty. The UN Charter is, therefore a treaty. However, it does not restrict the ability of the US to declare and wage war from the standpoint of US domestic law, as long as the President and Congress follow Constitutional methods of doing so. We may then, therefore, violate a treaty under international law, but still be legal under US domestic law - not because US domestic law is superior - but because the Constitution is the supreme law of the US - not its domestic laws, and not international treaties.

...

Even if something is not called a treaty, if it meets the basic test, it's a treaty. The UN Charter is, therefore a treaty. However, it does not restrict the ability of the US to declare and wage war from the standpoint of US domestic law, as long as the President and Congress follow Constitutional methods of doing so. We may then, therefore, violate a treaty under international law, but still be legal under US domestic law - not because US domestic law is superior - but because the Constitution is the supreme law of the US - not its domestic laws, and not international treaties.
Again, I fully agree with you on that.

BTW, did the Congress pass the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq in 2002 under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, or it used a different law then?

Again, I fully agree with you on that.

BTW, did the Congress pass the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq in 2002 under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, or it used a different law then?

War Powers. It's considered Constitutional, so there's no problem from a domestic standpoint.

Again, I fully agree with you on that.

BTW, did the Congress pass the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq in 2002 under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, or it used a different law then?

I believe it was under the War Powers act of 1973.

War Powers. It's considered Constitutional, so there's no problem from a domestic standpoint.
There's one funny thing. I've read somewhere that every US president since Nixon has considered the War Powers Resolution as an unconstitutional abridgement of presidential power. :)

I believe it was under the War Powers act of 1973.
The War Powers Act was passed in 1917, and it is a completely different law.

The War Powers Act was passed in 1917, and it is a completely different law.

Thank you mister law encyclopedia. I haven't had my 3rd cup of coffee yet.

Thank you mister law encyclopedia. I haven't had my 3rd cup of coffee yet.

Well, my first name is not 'law', and my surname is not 'encyclopaedia', but thank you, and bon appetit! :)

I hate to ask that, but... are you satisfied with my reasons for considering the UN Charter a treaty, which I've just outlined in post 124? And, if you are not satisfied, why?

There's one funny thing. I've read somewhere that every US president since Nixon has considered the War Powers Resolution as an unconstitutional abridgement of presidential power. :)

Technically, only Congress can Declare War. But, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

So, the armed forces could be ordered to go somewhere, and do something, and become embroiled in a... war.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (not War Powers Resolution) is a compromise that basically gives the President a limited freedom to use his powers as Commander-in-Chief.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

Well worth reading.

Technically, only Congress can Declare War. But, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

So, the armed forces could be ordered to go somewhere, and do something, and become embroiled in a... war.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (not War Powers Resolution) is a compromise that basically gives the President a limited freedom to use his powers as Commander-in-Chief.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

Well worth reading.
Legally it is called a 'use of force', not a 'war', I presume?

Thanks for the link. But the short title of the law is a War Powers Resolution. ;) The War Powers Act is another name of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which was adopted in 1917.

SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

Legally it is called a 'use of force', not a 'war', I presume?

Thanks for the link. But the short title of the law is a War Powers Resolution. ;) The War Powers Act is another name of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which was adopted in 1917.

We haven't been in a traditional, formally declared war in a long, long time.

The nature of modern combat makes that completely impractical.

What's funny is that in the event of a nuclear war, Congress will only get a phone call to evacuate. They won't be told anything until later - if they survive.

We haven't been in a traditional, formally declared war in a long, long time.

The nature of modern combat makes that completely impractical.

What's funny is that in the event of a nuclear war, Congress will only get a phone call to evacuate. They won't be told anything until later - if they survive.
Is there an act of Congress authorizing the President to use nuclear weapons on his own accord? I guess such law is in existence, so it can be construed that the Congress had its say already.

Is there an act of Congress authorizing the President to use nuclear weapons on his own accord? I guess such law is in existence, so it can be construed that the Congress had its say already.

Congress is granted sole power to declare war, make reprisal, and raise armies. No where are they granted to give such power to another branch... Such can be done only by Amendment (since it changes/amends part of the constitution).

Is there an act of Congress authorizing the President to use nuclear weapons on his own accord? I guess such law is in existence, so it can be construed that the Congress had its say already.

Not sure about the laws, but the Constitution says he's the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He can give them orders and they have to carry them out.

The President is in possession of something called the Strategic Integrated Operational Plan - a set of secret optional attack plans that are created by the National Security Council (probably seen by a Congressional committee in secret). These options, and their codes, are carried in "the football" - a little briefcase chained to an officer whose duty it is to carry it.

The President can open the football, and use the codes to carry out intricate attack sequences on predetermined targets. The USSR and its satellites used to be the only targets. In fact, everything in the SIOP has a number (this is public information, so don't get upset). It used to be that Designated Ground Zero - 1 was Lenin's Tomb (don't ask me why).

I would imagine that now any nation that could be considered remotely hostile that has nuclear weapons has a set of SIOPs.

Most of these plans were made in advance to make sure that all warheads arrived on target without disrupting the flight path or effects of other warheads (a bad thing called fratricide). Some warheads are also optimized for ground penetration, surface burst, airburst, or explicit fallout production.

On the other end, I used to sit at a launcher in Germany. If the right codes come to us, things happen. And we don't know much past that. If a rat crawls out of the toilet and has the right codes on the paper in his mouth, we do it.

Theoretically, there isn't time to notify anyone other than the launch crews. We would probably get the message long before anyone in Congress knew.

Not sure about the laws, but the Constitution says he's the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He can give them orders and they have to carry them out.

Its a two person system W.L. The President can order it but it takes another member to make it complete. Once the two codes are verified, the missiles launch and then its crack out the NBC gear.

The President is in possession of something called the Strategic Integrated Operational Plan - a set of secret optional attack plans that are created by the National Security Council (probably seen by a Congressional committee in secret). These options, and their codes, are carried in "the football" - a little briefcase chained to an officer whose duty it is to carry it.

The so-called Nuclear Football. Don't kick this thing through uprights though! LOL.

The President can open the football, and use the codes to carry out intricate attack sequences on predetermined targets. The USSR and its satellites used to be the only targets. In fact, everything in the SIOP has a number (this is public information, so don't get upset). It used to be that Designated Ground Zero - 1 was Lenin's Tomb (don't ask me why).

Because it was Lenin who led the red revolt circa 1917 in the October Revolution.

I would imagine that now any nation that could be considered remotely hostile that has nuclear weapons has a set of SIOPs.

Understandable.

Most of these plans were made in advance to make sure that all warheads arrived on target without disrupting the flight path or effects of other warheads (a bad thing called fratricide). Some warheads are also optimized for ground penetration, surface burst, airburst, or explicit fallout production.

Modern Tech at its best :D

On the other end, I used to sit at a launcher in Germany. If the right codes come to us, things happen. And we don't know much past that. If a rat crawls out of the toilet and has the right codes on the paper in his mouth, we do it.

Now that's scary. *cringes*

Theoretically, there isn't time to notify anyone other than the launch crews. We would probably get the message long before anyone in Congress knew.

Probably right.

Congress is granted sole power to declare war, make reprisal, and raise armies. No where are they granted to give such power to another branch... Such can be done only by Amendment (since it changes/amends part of the constitution).
I think that nuclear attack pertains to the power to wage war, not to declare it, and there is some legal basis for not involving the Congress in the making of the decision to use nuclear weapons.

The President does not require another person to provide codes.

The man who carries the football is the second man in the two-man presence, but he is the one who has the football and the key to the lock - the President uses the codes inside.

The other method by which it may start is through TACAMO or Looking Glass aircraft. Aboard each of these aircraft (Navy and Air Force respectively) is a set of SIOPs.

On board those aircraft are two safes, one at each end of the aircraft. That chain starts with a two man, two sets of code procedure.

Additionally, ballistic missile submarines carry their enable codes on board in similar safes. In the event that they receive no orders, and they establish that the US has been attacked (and probably destroyed), they carry out their launch according to pre-published orders in the safe.

The President does not require another person to provide codes.

I think he does.

The man who carries the football is the second man in the two-man presence, but he is the one who has the football and the key to the lock - the President uses the codes inside.

In that case, there needs to be a 2 person thing. My dad always said it required 2 people to nuke someone. That way, the President can't nuke someone for the hell of it. But he could be wrong. *shrugs*

The other method by which it may start is through TACAMO or Looking Glass aircraft. Aboard each of these aircraft (Navy and Air Force respectively) is a set of SIOPs.

Now this I heard about.

On board those aircraft are two safes, one at each end of the aircraft. That chain starts with a two man, two sets of code procedure.

Just like it takes 2 keys to launch a nuclear missile from a silo in Colorado.

Additionally, ballistic missile submarines carry their enable codes on board in similar safes. In the event that they receive no orders, and they establish that the US has been attacked (and probably destroyed), they carry out their launch according to pre-published orders in the safe.

Thanks for the info my friend :)

The second man is the carrier of the football.

If he thinks the President is crazy, he can refuse to hand over or unlock the case. I would bet that it's not something that can be forced without destroying the contents of the case.

Corneliu, are you ignoring my posts? :)

Corneliu, are you ignoring my posts? :)
Let's find out, I'll quote you.

Corneliu, are you ignoring my posts? :)

No I'm not. I have alot of other threads too you know! LOL!

Well, my first name is not 'law', and my surname is not 'encyclopaedia', but thank you, and bon appetit! :)

LOL!

I hate to ask that, but... are you satisfied with my reasons for considering the UN Charter a treaty, which I've just outlined in post 124? And, if you are not satisfied, why?

You have a good arguement Olantia. Some of which I could probably agree with. However, the Charter of the United Nations follows the definition of a Charter MORE than it does the definition of a treaty. The Charter of the United Nations established the Organization and the US Senate voted to approve our membership in it. Is it a treaty? To some yes and to others, no. I guess it depends on how you really want to look at it and on who you ask too.

LOL!



You have a good arguement Olantia. Some of which I could probably agree with. However, the Charter of the United Nations follows the definition of a Charter MORE than it does the definition of a treaty. The Charter of the United Nations established the Organization and the US Senate voted to approve our membership in it. Is it a treaty? To some yes and to others, no. I guess it depends on how you really want to look at it and on who you ask too.
Thanks!

Let's delve into this. What definition of the treaty do you have in view? The 'treaty' and 'charter' entries in any dictionary, be it Webster or even the OED, the definitions of these terms in any texbook are not in any sense the definitions of 'treaty' and 'charter' according to existing US laws and international legal instruments.

Basically, an international conference may adopt the instrument called 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Planet Earth'. If it is 'concluded between States in written form and governed by international law', it is a treaty according to the international law.

Were the POTUS to send the aforementioned Guide to the Senate for its advice and consent, the Guide is to become a treaty from the point of view of American law.

Moreover, the US Senate doesn't have to approve by two-thirds of Senators American membership in any international organization - look at NAFTA, for example. The FTA was established by means of a congressional-executive agreement, thus enabling both chambers of Congress to vote upon it.

Olantia, I already said that it really depends on who you ask.

I have talked to several people in one class or another and friends that I have and they don't think it is. I don't think it is either and neither do my Parents.

To some, it isn't a treaty and that it is just a Charter. To others, it is a treaty. It all depends on how you want to view it.

You have good arguements but I just don't see it as a treaty.

Olantia, I already said that it really depends on who you ask.

I have talked to several people in one class or another and friends that I have and they don't think it is. I don't think it is either and neither do my Parents.

To some, it isn't a treaty and that it is just a Charter. To others, it is a treaty. It all depends on how you want to view it.

You have good arguements but I just don't see it as a treaty.
Of course you, and I, and everybody can perceive the UN Charter in any way we like! And I don't think that the perception of that Charter by some dictator (and, probably, Mr Bolton as well ;)) can be expressed in printable terms.

However, the UN Charter falls under the legal definition of an international treaty.

You won't say that if your parents and neighbours were to say that the Posse Comitatus Act is not a law then the US military would obtain police powers, will you?

The legal status of one thing or the other doesn't depend on your (or mine) point of view. If your parents and friends don't think that the UN Charter is a treaty - fine, that's their opinion. The opinion of American and international law is different.

BTW, I'm sure my friends don't care what the UN Charter is at all. It doesn't make the Charter nonexistent. :)