The Need to Restrain the Treaty–Making Power of the United States within Constitutional Limits

1954 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Finch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The People ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
International Body ◽  
Domestic Law

“The treaty-making power is an extraordinary power liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”

The Federal Common Law of Crime

1986 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Palmer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Government ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Federal System ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Original Intent ◽  
The People

The United States Constitution established a federal system, not a national government. States continued necessarily and by design as active and important centers of governmental activity. States were institutions of inherent authority, while the federal government by original intent and then explicitly by amendment, was a government of only delegated powers. Since the federal government derived its power directly from the people and acted directly on individuals, it was decisively more powerful than the pre-Constitution Confederation. But the Bill of Rights itself is evidence of the continued worry, pervasive until modified by the Reconstruction Amendments, that the federal government might, but should not, overwhelm the states.

A View from Inside: Understanding Puerto Rico Cockfighting

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Úrsula A. Aragunde-Kohl ◽  
Yahaira Segarra-González ◽  
Liza M. Meléndez-Samó ◽  
Ivemarie Hernández-Rivera ◽  
Carolina Quiles-Peña
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Puerto Rico ◽  
Local Government ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Beliefs And Practices ◽  
The Third ◽  
The People

Abstract The purpose of this research was to better understand the beliefs and practices that the residents of Puerto Rico have regarding cockfighting, including their perception of the recently passed prohibition against nonhuman animal fighting on the island. It had an exploratory descriptive design consisting of three phases, where the qualitative data obtained from phase one would guide the process of identifying variables that could be measured. In the second phase, an instrument was developed, and in the third, it was administered. Most of the participants agreed with the prohibition of cockfighting in Puerto Rico and that it was necessary. The data showed that there is a disconnect between what the federal government of the United States legislated, what the local government and agencies that were supposed to enforce the prohibition did with the legislation, and what the people directly affected by the legislation received for education and guidance.

The protection of refugees in international law post September 11 2001

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 389-408
Author(s):  
Geoff Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
The People ◽  
The Face ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Post September 11 ◽  
Domestic Law

The protection of refugees in international law is always a complex mix of legal obligations and policy considerations. Unfortunately, the reaction against refugees post September 11 has ignored both the facts and the pre-existing law.This paper addresses how refugees have fared in international and domestic law post September 11 2001. Given that a refugee, by definition, has lost the protection of her/his state, there is no body, other than the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which is able to respond in the face of unjustified restrictions on the rights accorded to this most vulnerable group.The first thing to note is that none of the people involved in the events of September 11 was a refugee. Equally, immediately after the events of September 11, approximately 100,000 Afghans fled Kabul fearing revenge attacks by the United States. At the same time, under pressure from Pakistan and Iran, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees facilitated the repatriation of 215,000 Afghan refugees.

How the Great Lakes Became "High Seas," and their Status Viewed from the Standpoint of International Law

1910 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-313
Author(s):  
Harry E. Hunt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Lakes ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Great Increase ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
High Seas

The convention which met in 1787 to frame the Constitution of the United States, embraced two earnest and determined bodies of men. One favored a strong central government; the other opposed any great increase of power over that granted by the Articles of Confederation. With what jealousy the states guarded their rights and with what reluctance they made surrenders to the federal government is common knowledge. The Constitution, as adopted, was a compromise between the factions, and that part relative to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction was the second great compromise between conflicting depositories of power.

scholarly journals Acts of genocide and international law

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-54
Author(s):  
Stefan Kirchner ◽  
Doly P. Orozco López
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Central America ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Women And Children ◽  
Jus Cogens

In addition to the loss of over 200,000 lives due to the COVID-19 pandemic, racist violence, riots, wildfires, storms and political controversies in an election year, the United States of America might now also see acts of genocide. If recent reports are confirmed, multiple acts of genocide have been committed against migrants from Central America, targeting in particular women and children. This text outlines the elements which define the crime of genocide under international law and explains the special, jus cogens, status the prohibition of genocide has under both international treaty law and customary international law. It includes a call for further investigations, pursuant to the obligation of all States to combat genocide.

The Responsibility of the Federal Government for Violations of the Rights of Aliens

1914 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-80
Author(s):  
Nelson Gammans
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government ◽  
American Flag

“The only government of this country, which other nations recognize or treat with, is the Government of the Union; and the only American flag known throughout the world is the flag of the United States.” The Government of the Union, as the only internationally recognized agent of the state, bears the responsibility for any violations of the rights which it owes to aliens, whether these rights are the result of treaty obligations or of international law.

Application of Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution in international context—fear of foreign prosecution as ground for invoking privilege against self-incrimination—relevance of growing international law enforcement cooperation—role of U.S. judiciary in foreign relations

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-764
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Diane Marie Amann
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Context ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Domestic Law

United States v. Balsys. 118 S.Ct. 2218.U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 1998.Resolving a long-open question, the U.S. Supreme Court held in this 7-2 decision that a witness in a domestic proceeding may not invoke the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination if the witness fears that the testimony may be used in a prosecution outside the United States. Although grounded in domestic law, the three opinions in Balsys reveal tension between the judiciary's traditional deference to the political branches in foreign relations matters and its concern over the risk that individuals subject to prosecution abroad will suffer deprivation of liberty because of that deference.

The Legality of the Killing of Osama bin Laden

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 47-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cerone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Major Obstacle ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Osama Bin Laden ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Domestic Law

In assessing the legality of the killing of Osama bin Laden one is reminded of a saying about the situation in Lebanon. If you think you understand it, it has not been properly explained to you.Of course, one major obstacle is that we do not have all the facts. However, we also do not have all the law.The complexity of analyzing the legality of the killing begins with the threshold issue of applicable law. Is the conduct to be analyzed according to domestic law or international law? If domestic law, then which country’s domestic laws are applicable? Certainly that of the United States and Pakistan would be applicable. Saudi law might also apply (e.g., on the basis of nationality), in addition to the laws of those countries that have another basis under their domestic law for exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction (e.g., on the universality principle).

John Marshall and Treaty Law

1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Dumbauld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Interest ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
John Marshall

The enduring value of Chief Justice John Marshall’s contributions to international law is shown by the fact that during the bicentennial year of his birth the Supreme Court of the United States has had occasion in the course of current litigation to apply principles set forth in well-known decisions rendered by Marshall more than a century ago. Likewise there is timeliness, in view of current interest in “treaty law,” in Marshall’s pronouncements on that topic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document