Replies

Don't believe I said "ratify" did I? No, I said "adhered", as does the Wikipedia article you cited (hint: you have to actually read and comprehend what you cite and what others post). Now run along, I don't have enough hairs left to be splitting them with you.

Now run along, I don't have enough hairs left to be splitting them with you.
Hair splitting?! You and your "adhered"...
You keep failing to mention that said adherence was only for specific, short time frames.
Because the difference between a privateer and a pirate was a subtle (often invisible) one, in 1856 the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private parties was banned for signatories of the Declaration of Paris. The United States was not a signatory to that Declaration and is not bound by it. During the 1861-65 American Civil War and the 1898 Spanish-American War, however, the United States issued statements that it would abide by the principles of the Declaration of Paris for the duration of the hostilities. (The Confederate States of America did issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal during the Civil War.)
Seems like the US was trying to play well with others...for a short time.
Anythng else?

BTW, merely "adhering" to a treaty for a short time doesn't mean it supercedes the Constutitution like you first claimed...
The letters of marque and reprise clause of the US Constitution was superceded by a treaty banning such in the 1860s I believe.