<<  <  >  >>

Page 23

violation of that instrument."61  In Reid v. Covert (1957),

the Court reaffirmed that it "has regularly and uniformly

recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,"

and that

there is nothing in [the Constitution's] language

which intimates that treaties do not have to com-

ply with the provisions of the Constitution.  Nor

is there anything in the debates which accompanied

the drafting and ratification of the Constitution

which even suggests such a result. . . . It would

be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those

who created the Constitution, as well as those who

were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone

alien to our entire constitutional history and

tradition--to construe Article VI [re treaties] as

permitting the United States to exercise power

under an international agreement without observing

constitutional prohibitions.  In effect, such

construction would permit amendment of that docu-

ment in a manner not sanctioned by Article V [re

the amendment process].62

More specifically, the Supreme Court has said that the

federal government cannot enter into treaties that relin-

quish the constitutional rights of American citizens.  In

Geofroy v. Riggs (1890), for example, the Court found that

the federal government's treaty power does not enable it "to

authorize what the Constitution forbids."63  Later cases,

such as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)64 and Asakura v. City of

Seattle (1924)65 reiterated the point that constitutionally

protected rights are sheltered from the domestic effect of

treaties.  More recently, in Boos v. Barry (1988), the Court

stated, "Rules of international law and provisions of inter-

national agreements of the United States are subject to the

Bill of Rights and other prohibitions, restrictions or

requirements of the Constitution and cannot be given effect

in violation of them."66  Since the ICC draft statute would

"give effect" to international laws and provisions contrary

to the Bill of Rights--namely, forfeiting wholesale the

Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Americans brought before

it--any ICC judgment against an American is not likely to

withstand a constitutional challenge.

But there is a more fundamental question: whether the

U.S. Constitution will even allow an American to be tried

before the ICC in the first place if his or her offence was