Would you be in favor of this constitutional amendment?

[A18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment

Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of a treaty.

Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreeements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.

Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[A18]

I see my topic is wildly popular.

[David S]

I see my topic is wildly popular.

Well you excluded Libertarians. If there was a Libertarian -yes option I would have selected it.

[A18]

The poll only has 5 options by default, and I have javascript turned off right now because of a different site, so I can't do options for third parties and independents anymore.

I guess pick the party you hate slightly less, in that situation.

[Richard]

Yes

[angus]

I believe your proposed amendment is redundant, as the first three sections are already law.  I'm a fan of simpler government, which often means keeping the constitution as simple as possible.  The US constitution, with its relatively few amendments, is already getting pretty unweildy.  Imagine if it were like the Texas constitution, for example, with its 400-plus amendments.  They write into the constitution things which should be dealt ad hominem legislatively.  Not with the constitution.

[Bono]

I believe your proposed amendment is redundant, as the first three sections are already law.  I'm a fan of simpler government, which often means keeping the constitution as simple as possible.  The US constitution, with its relatively few amendments, is already getting pretty unweildy.  Imagine if it were like the Texas constitution, for example, with its 400-plus amendments.  They write into the constitution things which should be dealt ad hominem legislatively.  Not with the constitution.

THe problem is, if I'm not wribng, treaties take precedence over statutary law.

[Peter]

If we must have a constitutional amendment on treaties, then I would like it to cover a subject of rather large academic debate: How do you undo a treaty?

Short of the other side violating its terms or pulling out of it, or the President with 2/3 Senate approval negoitiating a new treaty undoing a previous treaty, there seems to be little Constitutional guidance on the subject, and the Courts have refused to give an answer, probably because they are as clueless as the rest of us.

Many possibilities have been suggested:

1. Congress can pass a law undoing the enforcement clauses of a treaty, though this doesn't technically cause the US to completely undo the treaty since the enforcement clauses can be re-activated.
2. The Senate can simply reverse its previous ratification either by simple or 2/3 majorities
3. The President can simply undo the treaty with inherent executive power granted him under his power to be the chief negoitiator of treaties.

In fact all three of the above have been attempted, all successfully, but scholars continue to argue over whether these actions were permissible.

[angus]

I believe your proposed amendment is redundant, as the first three sections are already law.  I'm a fan of simpler government, which often means keeping the constitution as simple as possible.  The US constitution, with its relatively few amendments, is already getting pretty unweildy.  Imagine if it were like the Texas constitution, for example, with its 400-plus amendments.  They write into the constitution things which should be dealt ad hominem legislatively.  Not with the constitution.

THe problem is, if I'm not wribng, treaties take precedence over statutary law.

isn't that true only if the governed stipulate to that condition?  can we not pass a law that says a treaty is voided without resorting to amending the constitution?  I'm not saying we should, but I'd think that would be legal.  The highest law in the land is the constitution and it creates a legislature to define law and a court to settle disputes.  No further amendments are necessary. 

[A18]

Treaties should have no binding effect on the government. It is up to the nation's elected officials to comply, with their own credibility on the line, with each treaty in accordance to what they believe to have been the original meaning.

[angus]

Treaties should have no binding effect on the government. It is up to the nation's elected officials to comply, with their own credibility on the line, with each treaty in accordance to what they believe to have been the original meaning.

I agree with that.  but it's a normative proposition.  I'm not a lawyer, but I think someone out there must know whether that's the case in our laws.

[J.R. Brown]

I'm not an expert on government institutions or for that matter the Constitution. But doesn't section 3 kind of throw out separation of powers and how would the executive check the powers of the Congress?

[A18]

I'm not an expert on government institutions or for that matter the Constitution. But doesn't section 3 kind of throw out separation of powers and how would the executive check the powers of the Congress?

The president would still have to sign the joint resolution, or at least, I would certainly think so. Then Congress could, by two thirds majority, override the veto if enough support was found.

Article I, Section 7.
Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Of course, constitutional amendments are considered an exception, so it's hard to say whether this would or not. I would agree that it should be clarified.