Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive
I'm not sure how that would work. First, the function of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional issues. As far as I know it cannot void a law already on the books by any other means than declaring it unconstitutional. First the case would have to be brought before the Court. Second they'd have to decide to hear it (they hear about 150 cases per year out of over 7,000 brought before it). Third, they'd have to declare the law (laws, in this case: the Great Lakes compact between the American states bordering the Great Lakes, as well as the international compact between the U.S. and Canada, both of which prohibit large amounts of water being withdrawn from the lakes) unconstitutional, and I am at a loss to understand exactly on what basis they'd do that.
Fourth, the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority over Canada or individual Canadian provinces, so if Canada opposed it (and I'd bet the farm that they would) we'd be acting in contravention of an international agreement between us and them, which could very well cause a VERY tense atmosphere. There've been armed conflicts between the U.S. and Canada before, and despite our ordinarily pretty good (though not always) relationship with our neighbor to the north, there is no guarantee that such conflict could not happen again.
I know there are lawyer types who post here. Comments from any of them about how, or even if, the SCOTUS could be involved in this?
|
When two countries are involved, it is under the jurisdiction of international law. Apparently, there is a treaty agreed upon by USA and Canada regarding the Great Lakes. (I never read it) When a treaty is signed, both countries are required to do what they agreed upon as it is outlined in the treaty. If one country falters, the other country can do something as simple as go into talks and renegotiate, all the way to sanctions, breaking off ties, or even war.