moment of truth

[MARK STEIN]

If the question is what the Geneva Conventions mean as a matter of U.S. law, obviously the Supreme Court is supreme.  If the question is what they mean as a matter of international law, the Supreme Court is not supreme (the U.S. might have violated a treaty even if the Supreme Court says it didn't), but the Supreme Court's interpretation certainly has more weight than the interpretation of the political branches.

Mark

DavidEBernstein at aol.com wrote:     I'm not sure where this blanket statement comes from.  The Supreme Court certainly believes this, but I don't see anything in the Constitution that states or even suggests that the final interpretation of the meaning of an international treaty is in the hands of the Supreme Court. 
  
 In a message dated 9/7/2006 11:52:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, markstein at prodigy.net writes:
 Under our system, neither the President nor Congress can say to the Supreme Court: your 
interpretation of the Geneva Conventions is wrong
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060907/1a12cc33/attachment.htm