Um, I thought the fact that my post stated the opposite of the actual result might have clued you in to something important. Specifically, the fact that my post was dripping with sarcasm.
BTW, a Treaty on Citizenship, with another Country, would be the Law of the Land. The Constitution can be altered by Treaty, in many cases.
There was a treaty between the US and China. And it did prohibit the children of Chinese nationals from becoming US citizens. But the Supreme Court didn't follow your script in that case, did it? It ignored that treaty. It ignored the statutes that prohibited the children of Chinese nationals from becoming citizens.
Why would that be, if what you say is true, that statutes trump everything?
You have a problem with logic and with reading comprehension.
I never said that Legislation trumps a Treaty. In fact, a Treaty trumps almost every other form of law.