International Law vs. the American Constitution
             This article examines the implications of three recent cases. These are:
             „« The case of Pinochette
             „« The UN condemning the Australian Government for developing a uranium mine near an Australian National Park.
             The traditional American view and it¡s Modern Rival
             The argument of American founders was not a sentimental plea for ¡§participation¡; the declaration speaks of consent to the ¡§just powers of government¡ not to its every particular actions. The point of emphasizing constraints of law and legislative consent is that government remains at some level of unavoidable coercion, one submits to lawful government, understanding that everyone else will be bound to the same law.
             Americans were ready to recognize that law required force to make it effective. Only 5 years after the end of the Revolutionary War they adopted a new constitution precisely to assure a more reliable force to American Government. The argument for the new Constitution as suppose to the article of confederation was that reliable common policies required a common government with it¡s own army, it¡s own source of revenue, and it¡s own powers to make and enforce laws. The way they saw this was since the world as a whole had no legislature this view might seem to leave no place for any international law. That was not quite the view of the founders. The Constitution provided that the treaties adopted by the United States along with federal statutes would be the ¡§supreme law of the land¡ but it also stipulated that congress should have the power to define and punish the offenses against the laws of the nations.
             When James Madison served as the Secretary of State under President Jefferson he thought it would be worthwhile to publish a formal inquiry on the law of nations. The founding generations and its successors saw that some sort of interna
             ...