Originally Posted by Covert Court
There the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution.
Note that the above does not mean that the treaty involved is
consistent with the delegated powers. Only that there is nothing inconsistent, if one takes the view that the 10th is something other than a part of the Constitution.
The problem here is that the 10th is part of the constitution (see Art V). Since it was ratified after the Constitution, it modifies said document. Specifically, any treaty made pursuant to Art. VI, cannot give the Congress a power or authority it did not have to begin with.
That was why the Weeks-McLean Act was being struck down. Congress had no authority. The Holland
decision was flat wrong. Despite the feel good words of Justice Black in Covert,
he explicitly agreed with the Holland