Holder.

[DanISSELisdaman]

http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/30/doj-says-un-treaty-trumps-us-constitution/

[CitizenBBN]

That article is pretty misleading. AFAIK the current issue surrounds the Bond case, where the federal government prosecuted a jilted lover who tried to poison a rival with chemicals under the power of the Chemical Weapons treaty. While the core question is whether the federal government can make a treaty and thus give itself any powers of enforcement necessary for it, a key question, it's not quite like they described what Holder is doing.

The Small Arms treaty has yet to be, and won't be, ratified, unlike the Chem Weapons treaty, which was ratified. The legal difference of having 2/3rds of the Senate agreeing is very significant. However, I expect SCOTUS to duck the question, hopefully ruling to overturn the conviction on the grounds that her actions weren't terrorism and were thus not covered by the treaty. It sends a message of limitation of government without overturning the Holland case which established the enforcement powers of the federal government in treaty enforcement.

It's one of the toughest Constitutional questions, esp. for Libertarians. The broad treaty power in the Constitution was put there b/c of the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Specifically in the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War, the US promised to protect the land and rights of former Loyalists. THe problem is that government had no enforcement power, and some states seized their lands and chattel. It meant the US was seen as not being able to keep its promises in treaty which meant we lost the power to make such treaties with foreign nations. It weakened our position significantly.

The problem is the flip side, when we put a fascist in the White House who wants to use the power of treaty to subvert the will of the US People and the Constitution. A man who places no values on our laws and institutions or on individual liberty. Once we make that mistake the power of treaty can then be used theoretically to turn on the Constitution and the People, override normal restraints on federal authority, and force us at gunpoint if necessary into complying with his will and the will of other nations whether Constitutional or not.

The best advice is to not elect a fascist who has no respect for the US Constitution or its principles, barring that I guess given the absolute choice between allowing weakened treaty power or overriding liberty I'd take weakened treaty power, but the SCOTUS will sidestep that one IMO.

All of that however only applies in this case to ratified treaties, which means the Small Arms Treaty still wouldn't be something he could enforce. I've argued elsewhere that just having signed it gives it power in the US and it does, but it doesn't give it the power to fall under the guise of whatever decision the Court makes in Bond.