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.
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?)
32 posted on 11/09/2012 12:11:11 PM PST by 70times7
(Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)