[rebuilder]

In legal terms, I think you'd have a hard time making that case in court. IANAL, but just practically, wouldn't this preclude the USA from taking part in international treaties, since they necessarily give some power over US actions to non-US actors?

[arca_vorago]

No because treaties are specifically addressed in the constitution via the treaty clause, but are still lower than the constitution due to the nature of the constitution as the supreme law of the land, and are made part of US law once ratified, therefore no treaty can violate the constitution in any way. (in theory at least). Now, any treaty which does violate the constitution that is attempted to pass would then make those party to negotiating it guilty.

For example, TPP was seen coming down the line, but the powers that be recognized this, which is why they twisted the arm of congress into passing fast-track, in which congress, potentially unconstitutionally, traded powers of treaty review in exchange for ~100 optional objectives from potus. This was legal maneuvering to prevent just such objections when they are going to try to shove TPP and similar nafta 2.0 things down our throats. The other thing they have been doing is calling things trade agreements which are really treaties, but trade agreements fall under different rules.

I would also say that the passage of fast-track is in violation of the nondelgation doctrine, but that's just a principle not a law.