Case Brief: Reid

Facts:

Mrs. Clarice Covert killed her husband, a sergeant in the United States Air Force base in the U.K. Under an executive agreement (Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ) was in effect between the U.S. and the U.K, the court-martial asserted jurisdiction over Mrs. Covert under Article 2(11) of the UCMJ. Therefore, she was tried by a court-martial for murder without a jury. Then, Mrs. Covert was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

She sought a writ of habeas corpus to set her free on the ground that the Constitution forbade her trial by military authorities.

Issues:

Whether the treaty which was in effect between the U.S. and Great Britain could contrary to the Constitution？

Holdings:

No, reversed and remanded for civilian trial.

Reasonings:

U.S. is entirely creature of Constitution. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the rights which are provided by the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution to protect the life and liberty should not be deprived away no matter he happens to be in another land.

Among those provisions, Art. III, §2 and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments manifest that there is no different to provide constitutional protections for individual in domestic or foreign.

All agreements made with a foreign nation are restricted by Constitution to the degree of power they confer on any branch of the government. Article Ⅵ of Constitution declared that all treaties and laws shall comply with Constitution and be responsible for the Bill of Rights. The Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. The Court also stated that when the statute of Act of Congress which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null.

 In this case, the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government.

Conclusions:

No, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Case Brief: Missouri v. Holland

 Missouri (Plaintiff) v. Holland (Defendant)

252 U.S. 416 (1920)

Fact:

On December 8, 1916, a treaty between the United States and Great Britain was proclaimed by the president for protecting several species of birds in their annual migrations traversed parts of the U.S. and of Canada. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act enacted into effect in 1918 and prohibited killing, capturing or selling migratory birds.

Missouri State brought a bill to prevent a game warden of United States (Holland) from attempting to enforce the Act in 1918 and the regulations made by Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same.

Missouri contended that the statute was an unconstitutional interference with the reserved rights of the States and an invasion of the sovereign rights of the State. The State also argued that the State owned the exclusive right of migratory birds in their sovereign capacity for the benefit of their people, and that control could not be displaced by Congress.

The District Court sustained to dismiss a motion by holding that the Act was constitutional. The State of Missouri appealed.

Issues:
       Whether the treaty and statute are void as an interference with the rights reserved to the States?

Holding:

       Yes. The treaty and statute upheld.

Reasoning:

        Article II, sec. 2 of Constitution provides that the President has the power to make treaties is delegated expressly, and the treaties-making under the authority of the United States are declared the supreme law of the land. If the treaty is valid then there is no dispute about the validity of the statute under Article I, sec. 8 of Constitution, as a necessary and proper means for Congress to enact legislation to comply the treaty.

The claim of State upon title of migratory is not stronger than the authority a treaty is enforced under the Constitution. In this case, the migratory birds have no permanent habitat within the same territory. Besides, there is no state could deal with this problem and provide adequate regulations alone. Therefore, it is necessary to take joint action under international law. Furthermore, there is a great interest for national to protect migratory birds because they are a food supply and the protectors of forests and crops. This shows that the Tenth Amendment is irrelevant here because the power to make treaties is delegated expressly. As a result, the Treaty and statute do not violate the rights reserved to the States, unless the statute is unconstitutional.

Conclusion:

         Judgment confirmed.