[extropy-chat] Treaties ratified by the US Senate

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Sat Jun 25 11:15:12 UTC 2005


J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>> Can you please show me, if you are able and I do think you are, and
>> perhaps this will help you show some of your developing skills with
>> marshalling a legal arguments concisely, how it is that you have
>> concluded that "treaties that ate ratified by the US Senate are US law."
>
>
> Treaties are not a legislative action and so they are not "law".  A treaty
> is a contract between governments, and does not in and of itself bind
> private citizens to the terms of that contract.
>
> As a practical matter the governments that sign treaties are often
> compelled to pass laws that reflect the terms of the contract.  The
> Senate could ratify treaties all day, but unless the House of
> Representatives agrees to pass laws that enforce the terms of the
> treaty it is not binding on the private citizen, only on the government.
>
> I am not a lawyer either, but this much seems obvious.
>
> j. andrew rogers

If you are open to counterpoint, please do read Mike Lorrey's
excellent post in this thread, I have made a first pass, liked very
much what I read, and so am continuing to read more into the
supporting links.

I commend it to you now quickly before returning to the pleasure
of reading into it again.

Mike's post provides a link to the US Constitution. There is gold
in that thar document and almost certainly at least part of the solution
to what ails us. And, like the UN Charter, it is remarkably concise.

Brett Paatsch 





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list