Replies

Ok, some research on whether a treaty can supersede a provision of the Constitution. Here is a link to an article with solid case references that discuss the subject. Some quotes:

By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties “are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. 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.
...
It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871)
...
In Power Authority of New York v. FPC, 247 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1957), a reservation attached by the Senate to a 1950 treaty with Canada was held invalid. The court observed that the reservation was properly not a part of the treaty but that if it were it would still be void as an attempt to circumvent constitutional procedures for enacting amendments to existing federal laws.
...
Justice Black in Reid v. Covert “... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.”

The bottom line is that a treaty cannot amend the Constitution. Citizenship specifically given in the 14th amendment cannot be repealed by a treaty with the Hauge.

On the other hand, citizenship given through statue can be overridden by a treaty (ie. born overseas).

As for a treaty overriding Congressional acts, the treaty and acts of Congress are on equal footing. When they conflict the one that was passed last is supreme. From another section of the same article:

What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant.