New Op-ed in National Review Online on Defending Property Rights
Sonya Jones and I have an op-ed that follows up on our previous piece on the International Boundary Commission:
What can be done to stop a presidential appointee who views himself as above the rules? Can the president fire him? A Seattle court heard motions on such a case this week. What began as a seemingly trivial property-rights dispute has quickly become a constitutional quagmire. The judge is demanding answers on the limits of presidential power, on whether the government must compensate property owners for regulations restricting their property’s use, and on the power of international government agencies. . . . .
Labels: PropertyRights
posted by John Lott at 3:02 PM
3 Comments:
A simple lesson in logic for Mr Schornack and those holding similar opinions:
No person of body can delegate or assign any powers that it holds itself.
The US Government can legitimately exercise only those powers explicitly granted it under the US Constitution, while any and all limitations and restrictions on the exercise of those powers (e.g., the 5th Amendment prohibition of the taking of property without due process and just compensation) provided in the Constitution.
Therefore, no treaty entered into by the United States can authorize any international entity powers not legitimately held by the US government.
Be thankful that the property owners are dealing with this matter in the courts rather than as a simple home invasion.
? In the United States, our constitution expressly makes a treaty part of the “supreme Law of the land;” Article VI, § 2. The legal question in the United States, and in any nation with similar domestic laws, is the interplay between domestic law and international law, particularly the domestic effects of treaties. In Sei Fujii v. State of California, 217 P.2d 481 (1950), a state court of appeal (the middle level between trial courts and a state’s highest court) struck down a state law as contravening Article 55 of the United Nations Charter, holding that the Charter was “self-executing” - that it had effect without any further state or national law. The California Supreme Court reversed, 242 P.2d 617 (1952), holding that the national 14th Amendment controlled because the Charter was not self-executing. The controlling case at the national level is Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), which held that “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power . . . which is free from the restraints [found in all the other clauses] of the Constitution.” However, in more recent cases, foreign precedents have played very large roles in national Supreme Court decisions, most notably in Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of the mentally retarded forbidden) and Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (sodomy law struck down). Would the current Supreme Court treat a Reid case any differently today? I frankly do not know.
Dear Kelly Haggar:
Thanks, but I think that the treaty doesn't give the international commission the power that it claims. Nor do I believe that also implies that President Bush can't remove the official.
Post a Comment
<< Home