Treaty Making Power Question

[Carsten2012b]

Ok, so I get the basics on Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, otherwise known as the "Treaty Power" which states that "(The President) shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". The thing that I wonder is if this clause can cover any kind of treaties in relation to intelligence sharing between two countries and a treaty that allows the United States to install military bases in, say, France, or vice versa. What kind of treaties can the government undertake?

 

[FrankRep]

Check these out:

The Federalist Papers No. 64
The Powers of the Senate - Making Treaties
- John Jay
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed64.htm


The Federalist Papers No. 75
The Treaty Making Power of the Executive
- Alexander Hamilton
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed75.htm

 

[hotbrownsauce]

I'm not an expert with this. But it seems as though the "treaty powers" power is still very open and not much precedence set in the Supreme Court? (As if the Supreme Court has a great track record according to both Madison and Jefferson.)

I would assume they(the gov) could pass any treaty that doesn't violate existing law. New treaties supersede old treaties. If it requires funding it needs to involve the house of reps. Although it hasn't in the past such as the Panama Canal Treaty which gave away a land plot worth an estimated $20 billion.
(...throwing in some sarcasm... Maybe they could pass a treaty without the house then secretly fund it via the CIA which is notorious for secretly funding projects... even illegal ones such as the CIA's involvement in the Iran-Contra under Regan. Crap. I might have just given someone an idea.)

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Any treaty has to be within the powers given to the federal government. It, the federal government, cannot use treaties to increase it's power or circumvent the Constitution (meaning a treaty cannot override the natural rights of an individual). See: the supremacy clause and it's "in pursuance of this Constitution" phrase.

 

[eduardo89]

Any treaty has to be within the powers given to the federal government. It, the federal government, cannot use treaties to increase it's power or circumvent the Constitution (meaning a treaty cannot override the natural rights of an individual). See: the supremacy clause and it's "in pursuance of this Constitution" phrase.

Reid v. Covert

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.

The Court found: "No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." The Court's core holding of the case is that U.S. Citizen civilians abroad have the right to Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment constitutional protections.

"The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html