By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:49:15 +0000

As far as the trade treaties are concerned, I am curious about the “intellectual property” provisions:

Will the usual suspects slip in language crippling or banning patent reform and copyright reform in the USA? If so, that should be considered a deal-killer..

By: Boblipton

Boblipton — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 01:28:41 +0000

The issue of whether the woman is guilty of crimes passed to implement a treaty goes around Robin Hood’s Barn. Let us propose a simpler scenario: do the treaty powers of the President and Senate permit them to make a valid treaty in which the U.S. Constitution is abrogated? Say, a treaty in which the terms of the President and members of the Houses extended to the durations of their lives and the Bill of Rights is voided?

Put that baldly, the answer is obviously No. The government is empowered to do those things which are legitimate under the constitution. Treaties may not be made to do those things which are barred under the Constitution. Therefore, if the law is unconstitutional without a treaty, it is unconstitutional with a treaty.

It’s hardly surprising that the Court did not wish to address that issue, since it would result in a diplomatic nightmare. However, the decision was disingenuous in seeking an out, as Mr. Rosenkranz points out.

Bob

Comments on: International law roundup

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

By: Boblipton