Would you consider the treaties you're speaking of to be on a par with the Constitution as long as they don't usurp the delegated powers within the Constitution?
The powers they claim are so enormous as to exceed the limits of natural law. I don't see how one could claim that they were intended as anything but to be a "get around" directed at bypassing the limits of constitutionally enumerated powers to manipulate the economy for corrupt purposes.
Now don't get me wrong; I don't think it should be this way. Treaties should never be negotiated to exceed the powers granted to the government by the people; to do so should be treason. It should be possible for the SCOTUS to void a treaty upon such grounds. My concern is that one can read the Supremacy Clause and legitimately construe that once a treaty is ratified, it is the Supreme Law no matter what it says. I think that's but one reason Patrick Henry had such a cow about it.
Think of it this way: The existence of the United States was acknowledged by the Treaty of Paris. If the United States had then lost a declared war, it could only been concluded with surrender by treaty. Effectively, by ratifying the Constitution the States gave the government the power to surrender to our enemies. So why then would we not simultaneously be surrendering our government's powers to protect our rights?
Some of these treaties delegate legislative powers concerning American citizens' use of their own property to the UN, which is CLEARLY unconstitutional. In that case, the "enemy" are the treasonous bastards who created the UN (IMO)for exactly that purpose.