On the record
A treaty which stipulates for the payment of money undertakes to do that which the treaty-making power cannot do; therefore the treaty is not the supreme law of the land.
Source
gutenberg.orgJames Blaine: “A treaty which stipulates for the payment of money undertakes to do that which the treaty-making power cannot do…”
Editor's note · Context
Blaine argues that treaties involving financial obligations require Congressional action to be effective, challenging the notion of treaties as supreme law.
Share
More from James Blaine
If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General…
Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war.
Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command.
Other voices in this conversation
