No, it's part of the treaty. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 22/10/2010 02:03:44 AM
Apparently we can only view as Constitutional that which is expressly stated within the Constitution, but if we come across something we don't like in a treaty, it's "commentary?" How do you even pretend that's logically consistent?
If you want to find commentary on a law or treaty you look for the relevant commentary on it. There is a reason travaux préparatoires exist.
Now, yes, there is some argument to be had given that the Treaty of Tripoli does not have official travaux préparatoires, but seriously, you don't get to cherry-pick treaties after espousing an originalist view of the Constitution. Sorry.
If you want to find commentary on a law or treaty you look for the relevant commentary on it. There is a reason travaux préparatoires exist.
Now, yes, there is some argument to be had given that the Treaty of Tripoli does not have official travaux préparatoires, but seriously, you don't get to cherry-pick treaties after espousing an originalist view of the Constitution. Sorry.
But to elevate the statement that "the United States government was in no sense founded on the Christian religion" to a federal law despite the fact only the Senate and President approved it, seems SLIGHTLY presumptuous.