MESSAGE
| DATE | 2016-11-14 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] I'm sure it's a coincidence, part n+1
|
Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com):
> Not at all. And your analysis of the DMCA is also wrong.
Want to bet $200 that DMCA was not an Article II treaty? I'm willing to
take your money. Any time.
> Treaties don't create laws.
Study some civics, already!
An Article II treaty is the law of the land in exactly the same sense as
a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
This was settled by the USSC case Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884),
which you can read here:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0112_0580_ZO.html
Quoting the Justices' holding, in part:
A treaty is made by the President and the Senate. Statutes are made by
the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The
addition of the latter body to the other two in making a law certainly
does not render it less entitled to respect in the matter of its repeal
or modification than a treaty made by the other two. If there be any
difference in this regard, it would seem to be in favor of an act in
which all three of the bodies participate. And such is, in fact, the
case in a declaration of war, which must be made by Congress and which,
when made, usually suspends or destroys existing treaties between the
nations thus at war.
In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United
States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial
cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as
Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.
A much later case, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), further clarified
that any treaty conflicting with the US Constitution is void (just like
a bill passed by Congress that gets held unconstitutional).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
> And she supported it.
Yes, First Ladies are _so_ key to what Congress does.
> You just make a bunch of excuses why her deadly and anti-semetic
> history is acceptable
This is nothing in the least bit like anything I've ever said, or am
likely to ever say. And you now owe me a contrite apology.
I'm pretty sure you've completely lost your mind.
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
