U.S. Attorney General: "International Law Trumps Constitution"

To know that there is a higher form of law beyond that of the U.S. constitution might beg some half-cocked eyebrows and it ought to. We tend to glorify ignorance and even stupidity at times. Patriots are driven by the prospect that they have a constitution and that constitution is something to protect with every fiber of their being. Now, when someone comes along and says "International Law supersedes the constitution," it just might throw a wrench into their gears upstairs.

Sure enough, our education system is not the most fine-tuned this side of the Milky Way, yet we seem to have this established notion that, albeit we do not have the best education system in place, we have the most advanced nation on the face of this planet when we are most advanced in defense spending and most incarcerated per-capita. Most of us are not well-versed enough in history or law to understand what Eric Holder is saying when it is in the U.S. constitution itself.

International Law, in its public interface, is partly comprised in black and white print via the Law of Nations. This book was used by the Founding Fathers themselves when they constructed founding documents for the United States in the 18th century. So, if they used the Law of Nations and the Law of Nations is mentioned in the U.S. constitution as a part of the "law of the land," why doesn't anybody know about it? That is because hardly anyone reads the constitution comprehensively anymore.

Holder is now going to argue at the Supreme Court level that International Law trumps the U.S. constitution. According to Article VI, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contract notwithstanding." This means that of what consists of the law of the land, treaties will be honored in spite of the Constitution or laws of any State, thus national and state "sovereignty" are waived at the behest of international law - treaties.

Below, we see Judge Andrew Napolitano making a couple of arguments on FOX News. The first is that although Secretary of State John Kerry might have signed onto an international treaty, it is only "symbolic," yet Napolitano admits that it might effect importers. As he appears to speak out of both corners of his mouth here, if the treaty effects importers it is considered a live document. Not exactly purely symbolic now, is it? The other argument made is that "treaties supersede federal law" and then he goes onto state that "treaties do not supersede the constitution, itself." Obviously, nobody there is educated enough to point out that the constitution IS federal law and is included in the "law of the land" of Article VI. Please note that this not an article bashing the conservative right. This is simply to demonstrate where ignorance is at play regardless of political affiliation on this topic alone.

(Judge Napolitano on Int'l Treaties & Constitution)