For US citizens: International law vs. Constitution.

[sandorski]

I'm a foreigner, but think the question is rather vague. What parts of the Constitution are you thinking and what circumstances. Just a for eg, once you leave US Soil, the US Constitution no longer applies. I could see certain parts being used as protection from International Law, such as Speech, but other parts not, such as the 2nd Amendment. AKA, US Citizen says something outsie the US that violate some Nations Law that the US Government refuses to hand over a Citizen, but in the case of a US Citizen violating another Nation's Gun Laws that Citizen might be SOL. That being said, the US Government probably would not hand over someone for the second eg situation either, unless that Citizen caused some kind of harm. Also, my egs are not really International Law per se.

International Law generally is concerned with situations between Nations and not really the actions of Individuals. Although Individuals get charged due to the nature of those actions. Generally speaking.

 

[whylaff]

I've stated that I consider it wrong if someone tries to apply it to a US citizen in the US where it conflicts with the Constitution.

We have treaties and agreements with other nations and all governments have done so since they first came into being. Some are good and some are not, like any other law.

That plain enough?

I should probably reply to your original question. I don’t generally disagree with the consensus here thus far. My point in mentioning the wording of your questions is that you get a more profound display of the thought process if questions like that are posed with some ambiguity as to the author’s opinion.

In my opinion though, part of the problem is the current social constructions of the notions of sovereignty and international law, especially with increased globalization that arguably cannot be stopped. I would argue that they need to be re-conceptualized. My reasoning is that people want the best of both worlds and that does not happen. It is a give and take. If one hand does things that defy traditional notions and the other embraces those traditional notions, they will eventually become irrelevant as a whole. The usual assumption then is that we should just completely embrace traditional notions instead—but everyone (even on an individual level) takes full advantage of the slight deviations and it won’t just stop one day. These slight deviations only have value (or risk of harm) because they are tied to traditional notions.

 

[Nemesis 1]

No. The constitution is above the government. It would be like you trying to fire your boss. You don't have the authority to do it just like how the gov't doesn't have the authority to violate the terms of the constitution.

Dam I read this at same time I took a drink of tomato joice spit it out on keyboard. Your kidding right. You been sleeping say its so . Because you missed out.

 

[fskimospy]

The concept isn't difficult. Note that someone had mentioned that we can sign treaties, and that they have the weight of Federal law. It still wouldn't override a US citizens Constitutional rights in the US.

I've seen opinions elsewhere that the US is obliged to obey the will of the international community, and that international law (and the SCOTUS has referred to it in past rulings) supersedes the Constitution, and that if given a choice between one or the other, the Constitution is secondary. I disagree that this concept of "internationalism" as it's been worded trumps due process for example.

Since others have voiced that opinion, I wondered what people on this forum thought. I didn't want to go into hypothetical examples simply because the thread would become about some agency or agenda. I was looking for philosophical/legal opinions.

Admiral Ackbar can relax.

Can you show me what you're talking about? I don't think I've ever heard a credible source make the claim that the Constitution is secondary to international law inside the US, and when SCOTUS referred to international law they didn't do so to show its supremacy, they used it for illustrative purposes.

 

[Zebo]

Fuck no.

Violates not one but two of Zebo's 10 universal truths of life:

1. The Constitution of the United States is the greatest document ever written by man.

2. It's perfection can only be shown to the degree it's principals are applied.

3. People should be judged on merit.

4. Only attack others if they attack you first.

5. Protect and help those weaker than you.......

well you get the point totally violates 1 and 2.

 

[shira]

This applies to US citizens in the US.
Supposing some foreign government or multinational power decides a citizen has violated an international law. They wish to apply it although it would directly violate the US Constitution.

1) Do you believe that international law is superior to your rights under the Constitution?

2) Do you believe the US government which is bound by the Constitution as it's ultimate guiding document should surrender citizens if the law conflicts with Constitutional protections?

3) If you believe international law trumps Constitutional, would you be willing to give those rights up if it was you or your family?

It's interesting that your operating assumption is that if it were determined that in a particular case international law superseded the U.S. Constitution, ipso facto that would mean that the rights of U.S. citizens would be LOST. Are you really so short-sighted that you can't conceive of situations where rights would be GAINED?

For example, suppose it were determined that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was a violation of international law, and that (therefore) all U.S. laws (the Defense of Marriage act and various state laws) barring same-sex couples from marrying were null and void. That would be a case where the U.S. Constitution was silent (at least until a same-sex marriage case makes its way to the SCOTUS) and same-sex couples would gain rights.

Or suppose it were determined that private property rights were STRONGER under international law than under the U.S. Constitution. Again, Americans would gain, not lose.

Or suppose access to some threshold level of medical care (including long-term care for the elderly) were deemed a right under international law. Again, the rights of Americans would be STRONGER, not weaker.

You may not like the tax consequences of such hypothetical international laws, but you were asking about rights, not taxes.

 

[RedChief]

It's interesting that your operating assumption is that if it were determined that in a particular case international law superseded the U.S. Constitution, ipso facto that would mean that the rights of U.S. citizens would be LOST. Are you really so short-sighted that you can't conceive of situations where rights would be GAINED?

For example, suppose it were determined that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was a violation of international law, and that (therefore) all U.S. laws (the Defense of Marriage act and various state laws) barring same-sex couples from marrying were null and void. That would be a case where the U.S. Constitution was silent (at least until a same-sex marriage case makes its way to the SCOTUS) and same-sex couples would gain rights.

Or suppose it were determined that private property rights were STRONGER under international law than under the U.S. Constitution. Again, Americans would gain, not lose.

Or suppose access to some threshold level of medical care (including long-term care for the elderly) were deemed a right under international law. Again, the rights of Americans would be STRONGER, not weaker.

You may not like the tax consequences of such hypothetical international laws, but you were asking about rights, not taxes.

Ahh...but you are forgetting the 10th Amendment. Using your same-sex marriage arguement, yes the constitution is silent on that issue. The 10th Amendment specifically says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". In this case since the constitution is silent then it defers to the states. Now, if the US signed and ratified a treaty that recognized samesex marriage, then this is where things would get messy and our courts would have to settle it.

 

[Patranus]

Congress can only enact law on the people of the United State that fall within the powers granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.

Congress could not (as an example) enter into a treaty (international law) that would end up restricting free speech.

Some might argue that these treaties can be applied to almost anything if the idea that congress can enter into treaties is construed to something along the lines of how they made up law with the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

All I have to say is let them try and enforce international laws that attempt to subvert the constitution.....

 

[guyver01]

are you asking whether someone in the US violates international law while INSIDE the USA or in another country?

for example.. it's illegal to talk about nazi germany in germany.
by making this statement, i just violated german law.

however i am inside the usa while making that statement.. so i cannot be held accountable for german law.

however.. if i was in germany while i made that statement, and then returned to the USA, the german law can request i be extradited to stand trial for violating the law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Or suppose access to some threshold level of medical care (including long-term care for the elderly) were deemed a right under international law. Again, the rights of Americans would be STRONGER, not weaker.

What about the opinion of Americans? What about their right of self determination? Some may believe in things being a right, but that's not settled here.

I can create a whole list of things that you might not like, call it the "greater good" or whatever, then appeal to an international law as a means to and end.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

#1 = NO!
#2 = NO!
#3 = N/A

US Constitution > "International Law"

The only possible exception would be if something happened in a foreign country. In the US, the Constitution is the law of the land. "International Law" can go pound sand.

As for the UN, I wish we would drop them like a bad habit. We contribute the vast majority of money, resources and troops to the UN, and still they whine and try and leech more and more from us to give to tyrannical dictators and corrupt bureaucrats. I have never seen a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the UN...

Food for Oil, anyone?

 

[Jhhnn]

The OP creates a strawman by offering a truly vague false dichotomy.

Just the thing to get wingnut juices flowing. Gotta keep 'em riled up somehow...

If... Then... Outrage!

 

[Oceandevi]

I have a solution.... Make the US Constitution the law of the world.

 

[RedChief]

I have a solution.... Make the US Constitution the law of the world.

In a way, that was tried once. The original Mexican constitution (from 1820 to 1840s iirc, but I could be off on the dates) was a almost verbatim copy from the US constitution. But it didn't work because the while the mexicans understood the words of our constitution, they didnt understand the spirit of it.

 

[Atheus]

Was this thread created purely so Americans can all get together and say "we're better than everyone else!" like spoiled children? LMFAO!

I have a solution.... Make the US Constitution the law of the world.

In a way, that was tried once. The original Mexican constitution (from 1820 to 1840s iirc, but I could be off on the dates) was a almost verbatim copy from the US constitution. But it didn't work because the while the mexicans understood the words of our constitution, they didnt understand the spirit of it.

Whereas the US constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is based on English philisophy and law such as the much earlier (1689) English Bill of Rights and the (1215) Magna Carta document. Just like the systems currently in place in much of the rest of the world. So it has already been tried - successfully - just not by you.

I would also point out that current US law (as opposed to original constitutional law) is in voilation of what we in Europe consider to be basic human rights and would therefore be a very poor model for other countries to follow.

 

[fskimospy]

In a way, that was tried once. The original Mexican constitution (from 1820 to 1840s iirc, but I could be off on the dates) was a almost verbatim copy from the US constitution. But it didn't work because the while the mexicans understood the words of our constitution, they didnt understand the spirit of it.

Yeap. The reason the Constitution works is that we as a society (for the most part, haha) have all decided we will follow it. If you look at the constitution of the Soviet Union it is in many ways as progressive as the US Constitution, and in some ways even more protective of the rights of the people... and I think we all saw how that one turned out.

What's truly remarkable about the US is that the Supreme Court can tell the President, the guy in charge of the armies, huge amounts of federal police, etc... etc.. that he has to do something, and he actually does it. A big reason other countries don't work so well is because their president frequently won't.

 

[Moonbeam]

Law is an approximation of justice which is a reflection of the degree of the moral evolution of people.

Where the people of the world are more morally evolved than Americans they will make better law and where not American law will be superior.

Most people will judge law by the degree to which they have identified their phony egos to externals like nationalism to paper over the fact that as individuals they feel worthless. Self haters are patriots. You can see this in this thread by the tone of many, that not just no but hell no routine of all self hating true believers.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hell no, no way, no how, not a chance. International laws can range from fine to incredibly stupid (politically correct BS etc), there's no way we should ever allo any form of international law to trump the constitution.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hell no, no way, no how, not a chance. International laws can range from fine to incredibly stupid (politically correct BS etc), there's no way we should ever allo any form of international law to trump the constitution.

Can it be that in some cases that fine international law you spoke of may be better than similar American law? I realize that the people who post here aren't really used to thinking about what they say, but I would think superior ought to be preferred to inferior, no, that it's place of origin should be of little moment?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Was this thread created purely so Americans can all get together and say "we're better than everyone else!" like spoiled children? LMFAO!





Whereas the US constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is based on English philisophy and law such as the much earlier (1689) English Bill of Rights and the (1215) Magna Carta document. Just like the systems currently in place in much of the rest of the world. So it has already been tried - successfully - just not by you.

I would also point out that current US law (as opposed to original constitutional law) is in voilation of what we in Europe consider to be basic human rights and would therefore be a very poor model for other countries to follow.

No this thread was created so people could come in and bring up things which weren't part of the OP.

Most here have an idea where the basis of much of the Constitution came from and adopted it's good points, but also included protections that weren't there.

I'll agree that both our political parties have done a fine job of trashing established protections recently, however your Article 10 is full of holes when it comes to protection of free speech.

One definition of freedom is that people are entitled to make complete fools of themselves. For example, one can deny the Holocaust and be ridiculed for it. Is it stupid? Yep, it is. Offensive? To many. Worthy of imprisonment? Nope. That's not true everywhere. Also GB has some disturbing laws regarding terrorism.

I admit we go out of our way at times to disgrace ourselves at times, and I'll usually bitchslap those who try. Locking up our citizens without due process for example, but that's a failure of our politicians, and if you have read my other posts you'll find that I hold them in low esteem.

Of course that has nothing to do with what I asked at the beginning, but then again neither does anything you've said.

 

[Fern]

This applies to US citizens in the US.
Supposing some foreign government or multinational power decides a citizen has violated an international law. They wish to apply it although it would directly violate the US Constitution.

1) Do you believe that international law is superior to your rights under the Constitution?

2) Do you believe the US government which is bound by the Constitution as it's ultimate guiding document should surrender citizens if the law conflicts with Constitutional protections?

3) If you believe international law trumps Constitutional, would you be willing to give those rights up if it was you or your family?

1) No
2) No
3) n/a (no)

I see "international law" differently.

IMO, international law should be between countries, and not between the world (collective countries) and individuals.

So I don't see international applying to individuals, we can't (or shouldn't) be prosecuted etc under international law.

E.g. the convention on torture (IMO) means that the signatory countries would agree to adopt (domestic) law against torture, If anyone is thought to have committed torture they are prosecuted under their country's specific law against torture, not some international law statute.

But your questions seem to indicate that international law applies directly to citizens of any country. So I think this is a false question.

Regarding Treaties- Treaties are also a contract between (states) governments/countries and, again, not between governments and citizens directly. Now they can affect citizens, but it is only through the power or rights granted to their country under the treaty.

To allow an international body the power to apply laws directly to the citizens of any country is an abrogation of such country's sovergnty.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Look at all the people who said "no" but support going to war over UN resolutions.

True that. Ironic isn't it?

UN resolutions apply at the 'country' level, not to individuals.

So, they are agreements between countries. And countries go to war, not citizens. Of what significance is it if an individual declares war on some country?

So I think it perfectly normal to disagree with the idea of some international body trying to make and apply laws to citizens of specific countries, yet agree that violations of UN resolutions (between countries) may justify war (among countries).

Fern

 

[Craig234]

UN resolutions apply at the 'country' level, not to individuals.

So, they are agreements between countries. And countries go to war, not citizens. Of what significance is it if an individual declares war on some country?

So I think it perfectly normal to disagree with the idea of some international body trying to make and apply laws to citizens of specific countries, yet agree that violations of UN resolutions (between countries) may justify war (among countries).

Fern

You are very confused.

I can't resist making an obvious point to your post.

(Besides the one that UN resolutions such as those behind the Iraq war are international systems acting AGAINST a nation, not making an agreement with them).

You're saying you are fine with internationalism exercising power over a COUNTRY, but not over individuals.

So, you are fine if the UN starts telling the US things like it told Iraq. You are fine if the UN organized the world invading the US, as its resolutions were used for the coalition to invade Iraq.

Your only objection is if the UN does something aimed at US individuals, not the US as a nation that affects individuals.

Before you start to protest how that's not what you meant, get the point - that's how much of a dodge your response was to the relevant issue.

 

[Fern]

You are very confused.

I can't resist making an obvious point to your post.

(Besides the one that UN resolutions such as those behind the Iraq war are international systems acting AGAINST a nation, not making an agreement with them).

Some are agreements among each, some are agreements among those countries making demands to another. I don't see how that's hard to understand, nor how it is relevent.

You're saying you are fine with internationalism exercising power over a COUNTRY, but not over individuals.

You've added the words "excercising power over a COUNTRY", otherwise I'd agree. International law has it's place, e.g., what rules are in place in the high seas that are outside the juridiction (borders) of any country? Or who has mining rights etc in Antarctic or the moon? These seem like obvious areas where various countries should come together in agreement on what rules exist among themselves in resolving disputes where no juristiction clearly exists.

So, you are fine if the UN starts telling the US things like it told Iraq. You are fine if the UN organized the world invading the US, as its resolutions were used for the coalition to invade Iraq.

I recognize that other cuntries have the right to enter into agreements among themselves. Just as Iraq refused to comply, as is their right, so could the USA. There is a distinction between having a right to enter into mutual agreements and the question of whether their resulting collaborate effort is 'right' or 'justified' etc.

Your only objection is if the UN does something aimed at US individuals, not the US as a nation that affects individuals.

Before you start to protest how that's not what you meant, get the point - that's how much of a dodge your response was to the relevant issue.

You're failing to get the point I was trying to make. There is a distinction to be made between laws or contracts that are made at the state (nation- to -nation) level, and those made between a nation and individuals (and even individual to individual). The OP's question ignores that.

The OP's question presumes a relationship between the UN and individual citizens. I'm saying instead that the UN concerns relationships between countries only. I.e., country- to - country, not UN- to -individuals.

I do not see how that distinction is irrelevent to the issue (questions) raised by the OP.

Fern

 

[palehorse]

Can it be that in some cases that fine international law you spoke of may be better than similar American law? I realize that the people who post here aren't really used to thinking about what they say, but I would think superior ought to be preferred to inferior, no, that it's place of origin should be of little moment?

a few points...

1) "Superiority" is entirely subjective, and is in all cases an individual decision or perception based on ideals and philosophy.
2) If an international law is deemed "superior" by a majority of Americans, then it can and should be amended to the existing US Constitution through the well-defined ratification process.
3) Until then, most, like me, feel that the US Constitution is a reflection of those rights that are "superior" to any others in the world, period.

At no time should an "international law," or power, be imposed above, or in spite of, the US Constitution. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution properly... or move.