NAFTA and GATT

[Michael McConnell]

Sandy Levison writes:

> Not surprisingly, Michael Paulsen, like Michael McConnell, makes a very good
> argument as to why, in effect, the Treaty Clause is irrelevant, as a
> practical matter (unless the only way that the national government can
> regulate in the absence of Article I power is through Treat: Query, would an
> international gun control treaty that a) prohibited bringing guns within
> 1000 feet of a school and b) required *all* governmental officials to notify
> the international agency in regard to certain information be constitutional
> even if Lopez and Printz are good law as to congressional power sans the
> Treaty Clause?)

That, I believe, is the holding of Missouri v. Holland.
(And yes, Sandy, I do teach the case. What would Con law I
be without Missouri v. Holland?) The underlying
structural logic is that since treaties can go beyond the
enumerated powers of Congress (but not violate the Bill of
Rights), that is why the framers required two thirds
approval from the body of Congress that represents the
states.

It is useful to think about the treaty power in the context
of the Treaty of Paris, which contained certain guarantees
of the rights of British citizens against hostile state
law, which I do not think would have been within the power
of the federal government under Article I, Section 8.
-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)