[extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law

[Brett Paatsch]

The Avantguardian wrote:

>I understand that the Constitution gives the President
> the power to make treaties with senate approval.

> But what I want to know is that if there is any explicit
> law in the Constitution or elsewhere that prohibits
> the governors of individual states from signing/making
> treaties with foreign powers? 

Yes.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
[Mike sent this link recently. Actually I'm hoping he and
I can continue our discussion on impeachment in the 
other thread. ]

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 says:

" No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
 grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of 
Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in 
Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,
or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title 
of Nobility. "

> As a completely
> hypothetical example could Schwazeneggar sign the
> Kyoto Treaty and have California abide by it? 

No. That would be the state of California breaching the above
clause in the constitution relating to treaties. 

> What  would be the consequences?

I'm still coming up to spead on the Constitution but I think
because of the above Schwazenagger wouldn't try to do
it. Its too obviously unconstitutional and not worth the 
political trouble. 

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction on Constitution matters
so it would not allow it. 

> Would the federal
> government step in? Would it spark a civil war?    

It wouldn't get to that. California cannot raise a separate
army. I think that's the point Joseph is making with the
clause he cites. 

Brett Paatsch