XPost: alt.drugs, alt.hemp.politics, talk.politics.drugs   
   XPost: rec.drugs.cannabis   
   From: pxhxz@cadence.com   
      
   In article  Cashew <   
   ashew@lapaz.com> writes:   
   >On 17 Feb 2005 13:12:42 -0800, pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)   
   >wrote:   
   >>In article  Cashew   
    writes:   
      
   >>>Screw treaties - the federal gov't has no Consitutional right to enter   
   >>>into treaties that violate the Constitution.   
      
   >>Actually, if you read the Constitution you'll find that treaties are on an   
   >>equal par with the Constitution (Section 4, Article VI, paragraph 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 contraray   
   >>    notwithstanding.   
   >>   
      
   >So if the US made a treaty banning the Bible (or the Koran, if you   
   >prefer), that would be Constitutional in your eyes?   
      
   The Constitution says that would be Constitutional, so it is.  It wouldn't   
   make it right, though.   
      
   It would be up to the courts to decide whether a treaty requirement in   
   conflict with the Constitution would override the Constitution and thus be   
   enforceable.   
      
   Personally, I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment specifying that treaty   
   agreements cannot supersede express provisions of the US Constitution.  But   
   there may be court rulings already that apply -- I don't know.   
      
   -Pete Zakel   
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)   
      
   "If time heals all wounds, how come the belly button stays the same?"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)