Constitutional Basis for Treaty-Making

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the President the power to make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate. This process requires a two-thirds Senate vote for a treaty to become law, ensuring that no single individual can unilaterally decide the nation's international commitments.

The treaty-making process follows these steps:

1. The President negotiates and signs treaties
2. The President presents treaties to the Senate for approval
3. The Senate debates and may reject proposed treaties
4. At least two-thirds of the Senate must approve for a treaty to take effect

This collaborative approach between the executive and legislative branches promotes a balance of power in shaping the nation's foreign policy.

Originalism and Treaty Interpretation

Originalism, a constitutional interpretation approach, seeks to understand the Constitution based on its original public meaning when drafted. For treaties, this means interpreting clauses as the framers would have understood them.

However, this approach faces challenges when applying historical contexts to modern issues:

• How do we interpret concepts like "warfare" or "trade disputes" for issues the framers never imagined?
• Courts struggle to balance original intent with current applicability
• Originalists argue against evolving interpretations, believing the Constitution should remain stable rather than malleable

These challenges highlight the ongoing debate between strict originalism and more flexible interpretations of constitutional provisions, including those related to treaty-making and implementation.

Judicial Review of Treaties

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting treaties and resolving disputes arising from their clauses. A landmark case, Missouri v. Holland (1920), established that treaties can supersede state laws, significantly impacting the balance of power between federal and state governments.

Through various legal challenges, courts have:

• Clarified how treaty powers are executed across state lines
• Ensured treaties respect the division of powers within federal government structures
• Safeguarded the alignment of international agreements with constitutional values

These judicial decisions shape the flow of power between branches of government and reinforce the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional principles in international agreements.

Impact of International Law on Constitutional Interpretation

The influence of international law on constitutional interpretation remains a contentious issue. This debate raises fundamental questions about sovereignty and national identity:

"Does aligning with international standards enhance our global standing or dilute our sovereignty?"

Two opposing viewpoints dominate this discussion:

1. Originalist perspective: Views the Constitution as autonomous, not requiring outside influence
2. Non-originalist perspective: Argues for considering international norms as the world becomes more interconnected

In practice, courts sometimes reference international law when dealing with novel issues like climate change or digital privacy. This approach represents a delicate balance between maintaining domestic intent and acknowledging international influence in an increasingly globalized world.

The Constitution provides a framework for treaty-making and interpretation that balances power and historical fidelity. Every international agreement must align with the framers' foundational values, upholding original intent while navigating the complexities of modern global relations. This delicate balance ensures that the nation's international commitments remain true to constitutional principles while adapting to an ever-changing world stage.

1. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
2. Scalia A. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton University Press; 1997.