Today's messages-Reply

[Sanford Levinson]

I am curious about Marci's position on the Treaty Power.  Does she, for
example, agree with Larry Tribe (not a bad ally, of course) that GATT and
NAFTA are unconstitutional because there cannot be the slightest doubt that
the framers of 1787 would have been aghast at depriving 1/3+1 of the Senate,
with its overrepresentation of small states, of the ability to prevent the
executive from entering into treaties.  There is even a (somewhat tenuous)
connection to our group:  A Laredo magistrate refused to bind over for
extradition an Adventist minister accused of engaging in crimes against
humanity while in Rwanda.  The magistrate argued that US agreement to do so
was unconstitutional because it had not gone through the process of
ratification required for treaties.

Sandy


>Doug Laycock writes that we agree on the scope of federal power at the time of
>the Framing but that "we disagree about . . . the impact of the Civil War, the
>transportation and communications revolutions, the New Deal, and eight
>constitutional amendments expanding federal power."  We definitely disagree
>about the impact of the Fourteenth Amendment and its relationship to
>federalism, probably disagree about the New Deal, and may disagree about the
>interpretation of the eight constitutional amendments expanding federal power.
>
>Marci Hamilton
>Center of  Theological Inquiry
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>