moment of truth

[Scarberry, Mark]

But under the rule that whichever is later in time prevails (treaty or statute), a statute interpreting our treaty obligations defines US law on the matter.
 
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of MARK STEIN
Sent: Thu 9/7/2006 9:48 AM
To: DavidEBernstein at aol.com; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; jasonm at u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: moment of truth


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/e40635cd/attachment.html