[flagged]
I don't understand how you can defend this, a supposedly smart person on Hacker News is advocating for the invasion of an allied nation. It's flabbergasting to watch this kind of opinion appear even here.
I don't agree with rayiner's opinion, but it's a completely rational point of view. Every empire thinks like that. Which part of it is so flabbergasting that is has no precedent many times over in our human history?
Article 6 of the United States Constitution says international law is United States law. US courts are the enforcement mechanism as far as the United States Constitution is concerned. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/
In the Treaty of the Danish West Indies (so according to the US Constitution, the law of the USA unless Congress withdraws from the treaty) the US will "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-3...
Why do you so carelessly and reckless disregard the Constitution of the United States, especially being a lawyer?
> Why do you so carelessly and reckless disregard the Constitution of the United States, especially being a lawyer?
We have an entire generation of jurisprudence based on the idea that “emanations from penumbras” are constitutional law and you’re lecturing me about Article VI?
The Supremacy Clause IS IN the Constitution. And IT (the Supremacy Clause) elevates treaties to be equal to and effectively law of the nation. Not treating treaties as such IS violating the Constitution.
But again, the Treaty Clause doesn’t elevate treaties to the same status as the constitution or laws. Treaties aren’t even self executing—that means they have no effect domestically unless Congress passes a law implementing the treaty.
Treaties aren’t even necessarily self-executing, which means they have no legal power domestically unless congress passes a separate law: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-1...
"When the terms of treaty import a contract or suggest that some future legislative act is necessary"
Does:
"not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland"
fall under? It is self executing. It doesn't need to be expanded upon by an additional act of Congress. Sure a more complex treaty might require a framework of laws flushing out what it mandates/requires or as discussed in your link when Congress needs to authorize funding, but this aint that.
Saying "treaties aren’t even self executing—that means they have no effect domestically unless Congress passes a law implementing the treaty." is bullshit. This legal thinking applies only to a SUBSET (but you know this) of treaties that fall under certain tests and doesn't apply here. You are spewing legal bullshit hoping it sticks not responding from a position of good faith. You have fallen down the MAGA hole and now defend the indefensible because you apply your MAGA leaders position first, and work backwards to justification from that.