IMPACT OF TREATY CLAUSE ON THE AMERICAN SOCIETY

NAME

DATE

CLASS
 Changes in the law reflect changes in the times, as no competent historian would object. This

truth is as true in international affairs doctrine as it is in domestic law. The treaty clause of the

united state has been observed to be changing from years starting from its scope to Supreme

Court's revitalization of federalism restraints in the domestic arena and an expansion of U.S.

treaty making range. However, the clause has impacted positively on the citizens of US by

providing vital virtues and moral lessons to the leaders together with their court affairs which

seek to serve to the interest of the nations.

The Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution empowers the President of the United States

to propose and, in particular, negotiate agreements between the United States and other

countries, which, after receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority vote of the

United States Senate, become legally binding with the force of federal law.

Some of the factors that led the clause to be incorporated in the constitution include the congress.

The congress is the source of the treaty provision. Congress has a history of passing laws that

support treaties. As a result, the president of the United States enacts these accords. By a vote of

3-4, the Senate approves the deal (Kaveny 2012).

Moreover, during the American Revolutionary War, the government of the United States made

an alliance with the kingdom of France in 1778. For a variety of reasons, this pact was integrated

into the constitution. One of these justifications was to give the president of the United States the

authority to create international accords. These agreements were made to help the economy and

maintain peace in the state.

The main aim of this clause was to enhance transparency and understanding in ideas or decisions

developed by the government. According to Yoo (1985), cited in Flaherty (1999), the Treaty
Clause focuses on clarity and continuity (emphasizing the influence of British ideas on the

Founding Fathers) as well as restoration. This implies positing a successful Antifederalist

response to whatever innovations the Framers attempted as the price of ratification. Yoo's case is

not flawed solely due to this emphasis. It is, however, counterintuitive not only because it

contradicts legal orthodoxy, but also because it contradicts the prevalent historical narrative.

Consequently, it helped in promoting objectivity in decisions made by leaders through

incorporation of national interest of the United States thus improving its relations with other

nations. This helped in reducing the use of subjective beliefs by US treaty makers in the

Supreme Court foreign affairs which seemed to not incorporate the interest of the citizens

(Bradley 2000).

The treaty clause also focused on protecting the civil rights of the US citizens. As discussed in

Bradley (2000), the treaty makers could even govern local criminal punishment by including a

provision in a treaty that abolishes the death sentence. Such actions were not considered in the

treaty power's subject matter scope because the treaty makers thought that human rights issues

are more vital to the US' international relations.

The treaty clause on the hand has helped in promotion of peace, security and moral order of the

American political society. Human rights have emerged as the new morality of international

relations, a means of conducting politics based on moral principles. Human rights are now used

as justification for official policy or as a nebulous rhetoric of resistance. For the moral

disposition of international affairs, this is a canonical text. Their indications and symptoms can

be seen in the growing number of humanitarian wars and interventions. Sanctions have been put
on states in order to safeguard citizens from their government thus enhancing the peace of the

citizens (Douzinas 2003).

CONCLUSION

Throughout the history of the US country, the scope of treaty power has been a source of

contention. The problem has revived in recent years due to a number of factors, including the

Supreme Court's revitalization of domestic federalism limitations and an increase of the scope

and range of United States treaty making. Regardless, the treaty has been observed to bring more

good to the US society as discussed above.

 REFERENCES

Flaherty, M. S. (1999). History Right?: Historical Scholarship, Original Understanding, and

Treaties as" Supreme Law of the Land". Columbia Law Review, 2095-2153.

Bradley, C. A. (2000). The Treaty Power and American Federalism, Part II. Michigan Law

Review, 99(1), 98–133.

Kaveny, C. (2012). Law's virtues: fostering autonomy and solidarity in American society.
Georgetown University Press.

Douzinas, C. (2003). Humanity, military humanism and the new moral order. Economy and
society, 32(2), 159-183.