treaties over Constitution?

[Arbo]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-criticizes-doj-for-arguing-international-treaty-can-trump-the-constitution/article/2538205

It appears the DOJ is attempting this end run around the Constitution that would not just set a bad precedence, but allow them to void the Constitution.

[fj1200]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-criticizes-doj-for-arguing-international-treaty-can-trump-the-constitution/article/2538205

It appears the DOJ is attempting this end run around the Constitution that would not just set a bad precedence, but allow them to void the Constitution.

I agree it's ridiculous but hasn't the treaty in question been ratified?


The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.

I think the larger problem is the Federalizing of every crime and the double jeopardy issues.

[glockmail]

The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.


Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond's case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.


That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country's vicious civil war.



It's retarded that judges don't know how to interpret laws, including international laws, correctly.

The Constitution was written by the People to set the ground rules for the federal government. It has a provision that the federal government will be subject to international law, if those treaties have been ratified. Those treaties have nothing to do with the People.