...that, by virtue of passing and implementing such a statute, the U.S. has violated a treaty. Presumably the U.S. must risk suffering whatever international law
sanctions are appropriate for such a breach. But that's not very unusual, is it? Isn't the whole point of the "last in time" rule that later-enacted statutes trump earlier ratified treaties for purposes of domestic law and, more importantly, for purposes of the Supremacy Clause? That is to say -- Congress *often* enacts "last in time" statutes that effectively violate treaties, or that breach federal...
25.02.05
|
Chris Borgen
|