At 11:18 AM 05/03/2000 -0400, Richard D. Murad wrote:
>Does obligations through treaty circumvent US law and US
>constitutionality? In other words, if the US signs and ratifies a treaty,
>does it take precedence over other US law?
>
>If so, it's a way to do an end-run around US law and US constitutionality.
This is really a better question for cypherpunks that cryptography,
and I'm planning to write a rant there.
The US government doesn't have the authority to make
unconstitutional laws. Doesn't mean they don't try on occasion (:-),
but they don't have the authority to do it, whether they're
regular laws or treaties or the laws implementing treaties.
Also, the Senate has to approve treaties, though they often
rubber-stamp them, just as they often give blanket regulation-making
powers to various bureaucratic agencies.
On the other hand, "US law" just means "the laws the politicians have
made so far", which is a moving target - they can change them
any time they want, though some laws are sufficiently
entangled with other laws or political agendas that it's sometimes hard.
Thanks!
Bill
Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
