Reply #8: Article VI, not IV. It needs to be pointed out that Article VI is not as [View All]

[Hosnon]

strong as most people think it is. Since Treaties (big "T", meaning U.S. Constitutional Treaties) only require 2/3 of the Senate and the signature of the President, they are only supreme law of the land to the extent that they do not contradict the Constitution (the theory being that the Constitution has an explicit amendment process and it includes more than 2/3 of the Senate plus the President).

This is why the cornerstone of the Administration's argument is "war powers" and "commander-in-chief." Any powers that Bush has under the Constitution to conduct war cannot be altered by an Article VI Treaty. His actions may be illegal under international law but they will not be illegal under U.S. law.

This needs to be pointed out regarding Article VI.

Now, by having Congress define the Geneva Conventions, Bush will protect himself under U.S. law. Furthermore, I would like to see the small print of the Conventions regarding interpretation. At the very least, a lenient interpretation by the U.S. Congress cannot hurt Bush's argument that he did not violate the Conventions.