Letter of Marque and Reprisal

[dallen68]

That's why I included the "limited to the scope of the treaty" part. For example, if we had a treaty with Jordan to not draw pictures of Mohammed, it would be unconstitutional for US personnel in Jordan to draw pictures of Mohammed. Citizens within the boundaries of the US would be perfectly free to draw said pictures. @):-c <<< Mohammed.

Ok, so I misremembered the proportion of congress in takes to make a repeal; the idea remains valid.

Not that it  matters, because as far as I know, the situation has never come up.

[MrBogosity]

That's why I included the "limited to the scope of the treaty" part. For example, if we had a treaty with Jordan to not draw pictures of Mohammed, it would be unconstitutional for US personnel in Jordan to draw pictures of Mohammed. Citizens within the boundaries of the US would be perfectly free to draw said pictures. @):-c <<< Mohammed.

The First Amendment is not limited to boundaries.

Ok, so I misremembered the proportion of congress in takes to make a repeal; the idea remains valid.

No, it doesn't, because aside from the proportion it's the STATES that change the Constitution, not Congress.

[dallen68]

The First Amendment is not limited to boundaries.

Uh, yea, it is limited to boundaries because our constitution is only valid in our jurisdiction.

No, it doesn't, because aside from the proportion it's the STATES that change the Constitution, not Congress.

It is congress. (which are assumed to be representatives of the various states)

[MrBogosity]

Uh, yea, it is limited to boundaries because our constitution is only valid in our jurisdiction.

No, the Constitution applies to our government, no matter where it may be acting.

It is congress. (which are assumed to be representatives of the various states)

No, the Constitution is very clear: it's either the state legislatures, or constitutional conventions in the states.

[dallen68]

OK, you win this one.

(For those of you who may be wondering, Shane and I have these "discussions" on constitutional issues all the time on his you tube channel, there is no animosity or disrespect involved)

[BogosityForumUser]

I think your issue is that you focused way to far into a particular part.  The whole clause reads: "[The federal constitution, laws and treaties] 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."

The "Constitution" and "Laws" refers to the ones of each and every state, not the federal government.  Everything after the last semicolon is saying what the federal laws are supreme over.  To interpret it your way would require you to go from talking about restricting state officials, to the US Constitution, then back to the laws of the states (and making no mention of their constitutions).

Additionally, Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson all said that treaties were under the Constitution and the court has ruled that way before, both explicitly and in cases where treaties conflict with federal law (because whichever was enacted last wins and laws are definitely under the Constitution), because to do otherwise renders the Constitution and its amendment process pointless.