Constitutional Treaty Provisions: Understanding Their Legal Impact

Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. In the United States, treaties are also incorporated into federal law and are considered the supreme law of the land, equivalent to an act of the legislature. The US Constitution vests the power to make treaties in the national government, with the President, acting with the advice and consent of the Senate, authorised to make treaties. Treaties may be self-executing, requiring no additional legislative action, or non-self-executing, requiring implementation by an act of the legislature. The legal effect of a constitutional treaty provision depends on the specific terms and conditions outlined in the treaty and the domestic laws of the nations involved.

Explore related products

Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations

$25

Indian Treaties in the United States: An Encyclopedia and Documents Collection

$39.95 $103

Historical Gloss and Foreign Affairs: Constitutional Authority in Practice

$39.46 $49.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

Blackstone's EU Treaties & Legislation

$30.48

The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11

$18.99 $23

Treaties as law of the land

In the United States, a treaty is a contract between two nations and is regarded as the "supreme law of the land", equivalent to an act of the legislature. The US Constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land, and federal statutes and treaties are considered the supreme law of the land per the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

The Treaty Clause in Article II of the US Constitution vests the power to make treaties in the national government, specifically the President, who acts with the advice and consent of the Senate. Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the US is a party have the force of federal legislation. The Senate does not ratify treaties; instead, it approves or rejects a resolution of ratification.

There are two types of treaties: self-executing and non-self-executing. Self-executing treaties do not require additional legislative action to take effect, while non-self-executing treaties must be implemented by an act of the legislature. The meaning of treaties is determined by the courts, and they are subject to judicial interpretation and review.

The limitations on the treaty power that necessitate legislative implementation may be found in the provisions of the Constitution that expressly confide in Congress or other branches of the Federal Government the exercise of certain delegated powers. It is debated among constitutional scholars and courts whether the Treaty Clause is the only legal means of entering into international agreements.

In conclusion, treaties are a vital component of international law and relations, and in the US, they are given the force of law, with the power to make them vested in the national government.

Congressional Repeal of Treaties

The United States Constitution provides that the president has the power to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls "the supreme Law of the Land."

The Constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land, and it is, therefore, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature. However, when a treaty addresses the political department, the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the court. The meaning of treaties is determined by the courts, and they are given effect as federal law.

Some scholars argue that Congress can protect a treaty from presidential termination by passing a statute expressing the will of both houses. This assertion is supported by the case of Goldwater v. Carter, where the Supreme Court found a challenge to presidential treaty termination non-justiciable without forming a majority opinion.

Additionally, it is important to note that the repeal by Congress of the "self-executing" clauses of a treaty as "law of the land" does not terminate the treaty as an international contract. However, it may prompt the other party to the treaty to terminate it.

In conclusion, while the President generally has the power to terminate treaties, Congress can play a significant role in shaping foreign policy by expressing its opposition and potentially delaying or influencing the process. The interpretation and application of these powers are complex and have been the subject of legal and scholarly debate.

Treaty-making power

Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. In the United States, the Constitution vests the President with the power to make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur. This is known as the Treaty Clause, and it marks a shift in the Constitution towards addressing international affairs from the perspective of the President's powers.

The Treaty Clause grants the President the authority to make treaties for the United States, with the Senate's role being largely advisory and focused on providing consent. The Senate does not ratify treaties; instead, it considers them through the Committee on Foreign Relations and then approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, ratification occurs through the formal exchange of instruments between the US and the foreign power(s).

The President also regularly enters into executive agreements, which do not require the Senate's advice and consent and are not intended to be legally binding. These agreements, along with political commitments and non-legal pacts, are alternatives to treaties that have become more common since the turn of the twentieth century.

The meaning of treaties is determined by the courts, and they are regarded as equivalent to acts of the legislature. Treaties may contain provisions that confer certain rights upon citizens of one nation residing in the territorial limits of another, and these rights can be enforced in the courts of the country. However, the interpretation of treaties by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is not binding unless authorised by Congress.

While the Constitution grants the President significant treaty-making power, there are limitations. For instance, the 1907 memorandum approved by the Secretary of State highlighted that limitations on treaty power may be found in the Constitution's provisions, which delegate certain powers to Congress and other branches of the Federal Government. Additionally, the Supreme Court has traditionally defined treaties as pacts among sovereign countries, indicating a focus on the nation-to-nation nature of treaties rather than their domestic implications.

Explore related products

Learning from the EU Constitutional Treaty: Democratic Constitutionalization beyond the Nation-State (Routledge Advances in European Politics)

$58.89 $61.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

American Indian Treaties: A Guide to Ratified and Unratified Colonial, United States, State, Foreign, and Intertribal Treaties and Agreements, 1607-1911

$45

Space Law

$57.45 $74.99

Great Law of Peace (Books of American Wisdom)

$14.95

The Treaty Making Power of the United States

$43.95

Legislative implementation

The legislative implementation of a constitutional treaty provision is a complex process that involves the interplay of various governmental branches. Here is an overview of the key aspects:

Legislative Role in Treaty Implementation

The legislative branch plays a crucial role in giving effect to treaty provisions. This is particularly evident in the case of non-self-executing treaties, which require implementing legislation to be enacted by the legislature for the treaty to take effect domestically. This distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties is a significant aspect of U.S. law, as it determines the level of legislative involvement needed to implement a treaty.

Congressional-Executive Agreements

Congressional-executive agreements provide an alternative mechanism for making international agreements. These agreements require a simple majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by the signature of the President. While they are legally distinct from treaties under U.S. law, they are considered indistinguishable under international law. This process allows for legislative input and approval before an international agreement is finalised.

Treaty Interpretation and Judicial Review

The interpretation of treaties is primarily the responsibility of the judicial branch. The Supreme Court has consistently recognised the legally binding nature of treaties, considering them equivalent to acts of the legislature. Treaties are subject to judicial review, and courts determine their meaning as a matter of federal law. This interpretation can significantly impact the implementation process, as it clarifies the rights and obligations arising from the treaty.

Limitations on Treaty Power

The treaty-making power of the executive branch is not without limitations. The delegated powers of Congress play a crucial role in constraining this power. Additionally, the reserved powers of the states must be respected, and legislative action may be required to give municipal effect to international agreements to avoid infringing on state-level authority. The Necessary and Proper Clause, for example, empowers Congress to enact legislation to effectuate a treaty dealing with subjects within the domain of the states.

Constitutional Guarantees and Individual Rights

Constitutional guarantees protect individual rights from the potential domestic effects of treaties. This ensures that even as treaties are implemented, the rights of citizens are safeguarded, and any potential conflicts between treaty obligations and individual rights are carefully considered and addressed through legislative action or judicial interpretation.

Judicial interpretation

Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. In the US, treaties are regarded as the "'supreme law of the land', equivalent to an act of the legislature. This means that the US Constitution gives them the force of federal legislation.

The US Constitution also provides that the President "shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties". However, it is important to note that the Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, it either approves or rejects a resolution of ratification after consideration by the Committee on Foreign Relations.

While treaties are generally considered to be contracts between nations, they may also contain provisions that confer certain rights upon citizens of one nation residing in the territorial limits of another. These provisions are known as "self-executing" clauses and are enforceable as municipal law in the courts of the respective countries.

The interpretation of treaties is generally the province of the judicial department, headed by the Supreme Court. Courts interpret treaties for themselves, but the meaning given to them by the departments of government particularly charged with their negotiation and enforcement is given great weight. Decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) interpreting treaties are not binding except between the parties involved.

In the case of a conflict between a treaty provision and an act of Congress, neither has intrinsic superiority. The later provision prevails, and the treaty commitments of the US do not diminish Congress's constitutional powers. Legislative repeal of a treaty as the "law of the land" may violate the treaty as an international contract, but this is a matter for international negotiations rather than the judicial courts.

Frequently asked questions