Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution
Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.
That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz....
This entire program or almost entire program was anti-Obama. Either listen to it or read the transcript
Bill Moyers wrote: Thanks to the journalist Lee Fang, we have another revelation into how the Deep State enterprise works. Writing for the Republic Report, a non-partisan, non-profit that investigates money in politics, he takes up that controversial trade deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership that President Obama is trying to push through Congress with minimum debate and no amendments. Controversial because some of its provisions reportedly enable corporate power to trump representative government, even go around domestic courts and local laws. One is said to prevent governments from enacting safeguards against another bank crisis, another to empower corporations to sue governments for compensation if, say, environmental protections, or regulations on tobacco and drugs interfered with future profits.
Well, being able to find a non-right wing commentary--so slanted that even any arguments stuck to that table tipped upside down, wouldn't be able to hold anything without super-glue! , but the Canadian Cruz is basically correct, even though does have to ignore his typical grand-standing.
Wikipedia wrote: Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert. The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.