[tomkat]

As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void,
the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution

[70times7]

Understood, and thanks. I was not aware of that.

But let us be realistic: if the proposed treaty is challenged because of a presumed conflict with the constitution who decides on what is the "law of the land"? (now... where have I heard that phrase recently?)