Final answer:
The statement that the Code section controls over a treaty with France signed later is false. Treaties generally hold equal standing to federal laws, and the last in time rule applies, giving preference to the last enacted law or treaty.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question involves a conflict between a domestic law (a Code section) and an international treaty with France. If this were a real case scenario, it is important to note that in the United States legal system, treaties are generally considered to hold the same legal standing as federal statutes.
However, when there's a direct conflict between a federal statute and a treaty, the issue gets complex, and the last in time rule often applies, meaning whichever was enacted last typically prevails. Since the treaty with France was signed in 2012, after the Code section was adopted in 2008, under the last in time rule, the treaty would most likely control. Therefore, the statement that 'the Code section controls' would be false.
Referencing the additional questions provided, the statements regarding historical events such as the Treaty of Paris and its impact on American Indians, and the enactment of the Proclamation of 1763 in response to Pontiac's War, can serve as examples of how past laws and agreements can either address or ignore certain issues or groups.
It is also relevant to note that domestic policymaking often involves addressing internal laws and regulations within a country's own borders, whereas foreign policymaking involves negotiating with other nations and creating international treaties, which can affect a country's international relations and may involve different processes and considerations.