Item — HN Reader

Because the constitution is setting up the rules for what can completely superceed it. Basically: Congress and the President must follow these rules when governing the country, except when they agree not to, as declared in these same rules.

I get the need for treaties and and federal laws to superceed local laws, but that laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution while treaties only have to be made under the authority of the United States, defined as the President and 2/3 of the Senate, is odd. Seems as though they could legally eliminate all constitutional obligations through treaty, or even enter into a treaty to use a different constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment#Legal_backgro...

2 comments

This is not really circular at all, merely self-referential; the Constitution also provides a process for it to be amended, so any and all of it's provisions could be repealed or rewritten without having to get a foreign government involved in the equation at all.

Of course, all of the parties involved (President, Senators, etc.) have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.

I understand the creepy feeling, though. And I'm pretty sure that through treaty, they've dramatically lowered the bar for entering into a treaty to simple Presidential whim. According to Wikipedia, "executive agreements" outnumber actual treaties by 10:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties#United_States_law

Thanks for putting into words what didn't "feel" right to me; my use of "circular reasoning" wasn't quite the appropriate phrase, I guess.