I’ll have to go back and look at the actual language.
There has been significant debate on the question of Treaties being able to override Constitutional guarantees, but the end result of such debates always point to the Constitutional language itself, and the conclusion always seems to be that NO treaty can trump the Constitution.
Sooner or later some activist judge(s) will attempt to rule that treaties DO trump the constitution (including the subject of this thread), and that will be the last straw as far as our Constitution is concerned.
Even the arrogant bastards in this administration will (or already have) argued that since we signed this treaty, we must treat it as the “Law of the Land”, even though our Senate has not ratified it. If we let these cretins get away with such treachery, we have only ourselves to blame as we enter the fast lane towards slavery to the Federal Government, IMO.