Does a treaty have to be compatible with the US constitution to be implemented? What would be the effect of the United States ratifying a treaty that is incompatible with its constitution?
Does a treaty have to be compatible with the US constitution to be implemented? Yes. A treaty that is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution is void to the extent it is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 657 (1853) (&quot;The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.&quot;); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616, 620 (1870) (&quot;It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.&quot;); De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) (&quot;It would not be contended that [the treaty power] extends so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids.&quot;); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924) (&quot;The treaty-making power of the United States . . . does not extend ‘so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids.’&quot;) (quoting De Geofroy, 133 U.S. at 267); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 16 (1957) (&quot;This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.&quot;).
The answer to your question, strictly in terms of whether they have the capacity to authorize states to violate international humanitarian law is yes. However, it is highly unlikely. It takes only one permanent member to veto such a resolution. Moreover, UN Charter Article 24(2) states that: ... the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations ... and International Humanitarian Law would certainly be considered a principle of the United Nations. So, are they capable of passing a resolution in violation of International Humanitarian Law? Sure. Is it likely to happen? Almost certainly not. Having said that, if this happened, it would be a novel area of law, and while currently, international law suggests it would be binding and legal, it is possible that sanctions could be imposed if such a resolution were passed by the Security Council.
Yes, explicitly. It even laid out the procedure and method (i.e. on equal footing) of these new states. Specifically, Article IV, Section 3, the &quot;Admissions Clause&quot;: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. Note that many of the things in your quoted section are forbidden to the States, but are explicitly granted to the Federal Government (in various sections). So it's not &quot;this shall not be done&quot;, but rather &quot;the individual states shall not do these things; Federal Government shall be the only one to do these things if they can, as else where they may be banned from doing so&quot;.
is this absolutely required to be considered a valid document in most jurisdictions, most notably, the European Union? Not at all. There is no legal requirement that contracts, terms of service, and so forth be drafted, devised, or even validated by a lawyer. Law requires that certain types of contract be notarized. That refers to the moment where the parties sign/formalize the contract, which is different from --and independent of-- whether its terms were written by a lawyer. A messaging service like the one you have in mind definitely is not subject to such requirement either.
The UDHR does not create enforceable rights. It is aspirational and not self-executing. This said, calling a legally recognized relationship a "civil union" rather than a "marriage" does not inherently violate the UDHR any more than using the Mandarin or Swahili word for marriage instead of the English one would. A marriage is just a bundle of rights and responsibilities, the UDHR does not tightly constrain what must be included in that bundle, and it is surely the substance rather than the mere terminology that matters for determining if rights have been violated. Something fairly described as marriage must be available to all, but a rose by any other name would be just as sweet. Civil law countries already distinguish between legal marriage, which basically is a "civil union" and religious marriage, which is deinstitutionalized.
The U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 10 is titled "Powers Prohibited of States," and it reads: No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. The title of the section, Powers Prohibited of States, tells us that this clause is directed to the states and prevents the states from enacting any state laws that retroactively impair obligations and rights between two contracting parties. In New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co, the court held that a law passed by the state legislature must be the cause of a contract's obligations to have been impaired in order for relief to be sought under this clause. The Heritage Guide to The Constitution has a good article explaining the history of this clause. A central provision of the Northwest Ordinance, which established the Northwest Territory, stated: In the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed. While operating under the Articles of Confederation between 1777 and 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted, some state legislatures were passing laws relieving well-connected people from debts for which they had contracted. As the Heritage Guide explains, the obligation of contracts section was added to the clause of the Constitution which prevented states from printing money and making treaties. Initially, the clause was meant to prevent state legislation that retroactively changed the terms of private contracts. But as cases worked their way through the courts, the Supreme Court eventually set that standard that the obligation of contracts clause also prevented states from undoing contracts to which the state was a party where the obligation of the contract had been completed. (As opposed to breach of contract claims for uncompleted contracts.) Ogden v Saunders, in 1827, held that the obligation of contracts clause doesn't apply to contracts that did not exist at the time a statute was passed. Those states with their own Obligation of Contracts Clause may have had them before the U.S. Constitution was written (Virginia's original constitution was enacted in 1776) or may have added them as an amplification of the prohibition found in the U.S. Constitution.
Does this mean that all four of the above are &quot;equipotent&quot;? No. The inclusion of these foundational documents in the Front Matter of the United States Code does not indicate anything regarding their legal status. It is more of a political statement, as a preamble to all laws in today's sovereign federal state, describing the foundation of the United States of America and its constitutional order. The only constitutional law in force today in the U.S. is the Constitution for the United States of America, beginning with We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. and the subsequent amendments. The ratification of the Constitution replaced any previous constitutional orders in effect between the States. A new government was created by the Constitution and replaced the old one under the Articles of the Confederation: Both Governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The New Government did not commence until the old Government expired. It is apparent that the government did not commence on the Constitution being ratified by the ninth State; for these ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognized by the Convention, and who were requested to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of bringing the new Government into operation. In fact, Congress did continue to act as a Government until it dissolved on the 1st of November, by the successive disappearance of its Members. It existed potentially until the 2d of March, the day proceeding that on which the Members of the new Congress were directed to assemble. Owings v. Speed The States abandoned their old agreement (the Articles of Confederation) and subjected themselves to the new Constitution. Of course, the other documents remain historically very significant and may shine lights on the interpretation of the present Constitution, for example, in Texas v. White, the reference made to the concept of &quot;perpetual union&quot; found in the Articles. The Declaration of Independence is not so much a legal document per se but a declaration of the existence of the States sovereign from the British Crown; but such sovereignty is not a result from the declaration, but from the acts of war. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, while remaining in effect under the Constitution by Acts of (the new) Congress, is in any case spent as its territorial extent is extinguished by the establishment and admission of states, who enjoy equal status under the Constitution. See for example, Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans and Strader v. Graham.
It is a vanishingly small possibility. First, someone would need to bring a case that an appropriation for the Air Force was unconstitutional. A Federal court is unlikely to find that it is because: The constitution would be interpreted broadly where the thing being considered did not exist when it was ratified. That is, the court would consider if, had the Air Force existed the drafters of the constitution would have wanted it governed by the Federal government or the State governments. Almost certainly they would decide on the Federal government. The Air Force is a direct descendent of the Army - originally being the United States Army Air Force. As such, an alternative line of reasoning for the court is that the army contemplated by the constitution consists of both the Army and the Air Force - the fact that they have been split is not relevant.