Well first you forgot that under Article V the Constitution can be amended by a 2/3rds majority of both houses of Congress. Proposed amendments are then sent to the states for ratification, adoption being contingent upon majority votes in the legislatures of 3/4s of the states or a majority vote in 3/4s of ratifying conventions called for the purpose of considering the proposed amendment(s). The method of ratification is proposed by Congress.
The 3/4s requirement is for 3/4s of the legislatures or conventions, not the legislators or convention members voting, a simple majority there is all that is required for adoption of the proposed amendment(s).
You are correct that 2/3rds of the several states can call a
convention for the purpose of amending the constitution.
I see no reason to fear another convention, any action taken there by majority vote would require the same super majority of 3/4s of the states.
For your view regarding treaties versus the Constitution I refer you to Article VI of the Constitution:
"...and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the US, shall be the supreme law of the land..."
Treaties, as you point out have to be ratified by the Senate. Key here is not to elect softheads or traitors, no?
As you point out, treaties can be over-ridden as un-Constitutional. The same constitution that establishes the Supreme Court defines the jurisdiction of that court to include treaties among other things.
What would I think of a treaty revoking the rights of women and non-Muslims and instituting Sharia law?
About as much as I think of straw man arguments.
About as much as I think of straw man arguments.
What I stated wasn't a straw-man argument, it was an illustration of how a treaty cannot override the Constitution. Granted, it is a rather extreme example, but it is the point that counts - treaties cannot supercede the Constitution. That was the point of my entire post.