[extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> 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. 

Yes, HOWEVER, while California cannot sign the Kyoto Treaty, or any
other, they can resolve that the state government, and local
governments of the state, shall function in accordance with the treaty
as if it were law in the US, with the sole exception being that they
cannot participate in the pollution fine distribution system with other
nations. California could pass a law that mandates that all state
offices, commercial enterprises, and new construction reduce their
emissions to 1990 levels. So long as the law doesn't specifically
mention the Kyoto Treaty and acts as if its measures are specifically
Californian in nature, then it would be constitutional.

> 
> > 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.

Actually, California can raise a separate army, so long as it is called
a State Guard or State Militia. Such units cannot operate outside the
boundaries of the state except in pursuit of criminals or
invaders/attackers, or with the agreement of the governors of the other
states they operate in.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com