Missouri argued that the Federal
Government infringed on the rights of the state given to the state by
the Tenth Amendment by forming a treaty with Canada which said a
certain species of migratory bird was to be protected.
The ruling was that the Constitution
gave the Federal Government the ability to make treaties with other
countries. These then become the “supreme law of the land” and as
such must be followed (1). The federal government was just in
making this treaty because the bird needed to be protected for the
sake for the sake of the environment.
Additionally, the Court decided that
because the birds were migratory and did not reside in any one state,
they could not be considered a state's property; this being, it must
be the “officers of the United States” who enforce the treaty
(2). Thus, the federal government was right in making such a
treaty and did not infringe on the rights of the state.
Personally, I feel like the Supreme
Court decided in the right concerning the treaty of the United States
with Canada. Upon first reading of the court case summary, I felt
that the decision was unfair to states in general, especially since I
thought that the Court wasn't allowing the State of Missouri to
regulate the birds because the birds only go through the state and do
not reside in it. However, this is not the case. The Court said “but
for the treaty, the State would be free to regulate this subject
itself” (3). Thus, if the treaty had not been made by the
Federal Government, it would be up to the state if it wanted to
protect the birds or not.
This court case relates to the Tenth
Amendment because concerns an example of a right given to the Federal
Government in the Constitution. This is the right to make Treaties
(U.S. Constitution, art. 2, sec. 2). According to the Tenth
Amendment, rights not given to the Federal Government belong to the
states. However, since the Constitution does give this right to the
Federal Government, states must follow the treaties made.
Bibliography:
1. "State of Missouri v. Holland," Supreme Court opinion by Justice Holmes, hosted by Cornell University Law School. Website not dated, accessed January 31-February 6, 2013, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/252/416
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
Daaren,
ReplyDeleteI too feel that the court made the correct decision, though I did not share your original feelings that the ruling was unfair to the state. The decision to allow the federal government to make and enforce international treaties was outlined in the constitution, as you said, and this case was argued in the early 1900s, so at that point I feel like the law was firmly established. It seems more to me that Missouri simply did not want to have to bother protecting the birds and putting forth the extra effort, though I admit I do not know the motivations of those involved.
Daaren,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree, based on the Constitution I would say the correct ruling was made in this case. Like you and Brett, I have to admit when I was first starting to read this I too thought the Court may have ruled wrong. But as you greatly pointed out that in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution the national government is allowed to make treaties, and that combined with the 10th Amendment, the ruling made appears correct. Using the two sections of the Constitution make this decision correct, as the power is given to the national government to make treaties with other nations, and there is not any restriction to what they can be about, thus the treaty is okay. And while I do see Missouri’s issue with it, the 10th Amendment steps in and makes this case solid, as the power is granted to the national government, thus no default to Missouri. While Missouri has a point in what power does the national government have to make a decision regarding birds, but then again there aren’t any restrictions on treaties. The treaty does seem somewhat interesting, but hey they are allowed that power. The 10th Amendment is one of my favorite amendments, in my opinion it is highly important overall in terms of our government, and gets over looked a quite a bit. Great post and a good read, you did a good job of showing the influence of the 10th Amendment in this case.
- Jonathan Hanje