Quote:
However, the SCOTUS held that the federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment. This was also the first time a certain phrase was used, and it was coined by Justice Holmes, as he referred to the "living constitution."
While it may be said that the treaty did not violate the constitution, it did give the Congress a power it did not hold before. The SCOTUS acknowledged this.
So while the Court in the 50's and 60's might have implied (said in dicta) that a treaty may not violate the constitution, Holland has never been overturned.
|
Antitipas, this is a fascinating post. Thank you or ed-u-ma-cating me!
While
Missouri v. Holland was certainly an interesting test of
states' rights, I'm curious whether this ruling would have any bearing on a theoretical treaty that could infringe on the
individual rights of US citizens. I don't think this has ever been tested by the SCOTUS. Thoughts?