Actually, legally speaking, the Constitution trumps both laws and treaties (that's the Supremacy Clause), but laws don't trump treaties. Treaties, legally speaking, from a doctrinal point of view, are as much the law of the land as any statute enacted by Congress. In fact, they are enacted, or anyway approved, by Congress. Practically speaking, of course, treaties have a lot less weight in the courts for the reason that the courts, feeling constrained by seperation of power concern, the political question doctrine (namely, don't mess with the Executive or Congress), and the long lease givcn the Executive in foreign affairs, are extremely reluctant to strike down the acts of the Executive in foreign affairs.
And, actually, Congress doesn't make laws that violate treaties "all the time." What examples are you thinking of? Nor does the Executive make laws _at all_, although some administrative agencies have the power delegated to them by Congress to make rules that have the force of law. Again, I'm not sure I can think of a lot of examples where administrative rules violate our treaty obligations. (Actually I can't think of any.) This is different from the Executive _taking actions_ that violate those obligations -- but usually those actions don't go through the rule-making process that would give them the force of law. jks <<<<<>>>>>
presidents make laws, they're called executive orders, they go all the way back to first prez washington, there have been *thousands* of them, some of them pretty darn important, lbj's #11246 in '65 initiating affirmative action in '65 example of being really important...
of course, authority is not unlimited, but fact that supreme court decison in '52 _youngstown_ case invalidating truman's seizure of steel mills is *only* case ever cited indicates its uniqueness, most court rulings in executive order matters have provided for broad parameters leaving considerable room for presidential action/decree/directive/order...
presidential executive agreements are on even more solid constitutional ground (certainly with respect to supreme court interpretation), about 95% of international agreements are via this means rather than treaties, again, power is not unlimited, but '37 supreme court ruling in _u.s. v belmont_ holding that executive agreements are legally equal to treaties and have status of 'supreme law of the land' remains in effect... michael hoover
-------------------------------------------------------------- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.