I'm not going to do any research on this--too many late nights back in school doing it for a degree I ultimately decided I didn't want. However, for those of you who like "black letter" law:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...
There ya go.
I guess I agree that the court has jurisdiction because of this clause, to hear cases in which treaties and the constitutional issues are raised, but I do not know if that applies to the substantive interpretation of the supremacy of the treaty clause or the equality of the treaty clause, or the inferiority of the treaty clause vis-a-vis the the Bill of Rights.
For eaxample, did anyone ever say taht if the US ientered into a treawty at the UN that said there could be no possession of firearms (in assumed violation of the 2nd amendment) I assume I could take the issue to the courts to determine if that treaty worked to take my weapon away from me.
But when the court decides between the 2nd Amendment and the treaty, who wins? I would hope that the court would always say that any provision in any treaty that violates any right in the Bill of Rights is void ab initio.
Would Clinton appointees who rely on foreign precedent always rule in favor of the Bill of Rights? Some argue in favor of eliminating the death penalty as a violation of due process that other governments now ban the death penalty. They use foreign precedent to justify their own views on constitutional interpretations.
How much further is the leap to say that the treaty trumps the Bill of Rights?