[Jacquerie]

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Contrary to the article, it would appear that our wise Framers did not intend Treaties to supersede the Constitution. Of course, the five blackrobes on Scotus who believe Nigerian Law should be considered in their deliberations will likely thing otherwise.

[libstripper]

To be valid, treaties must be made, “under the Authority of the United States.” The “Authority of the United States” comes from the Constitution. Hence, I would argue no treaty can supersede the Constitution.

[faucetman]

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.”

Treaties SHALL be the SUPREME LAW of the land.

While not superseding the constitution, it is nearly equal to and certainly supersedes congress. I would rank a treaty one small step below an amendment. In other words, I think treaties carry a lot of weight and are to be feared as a way to steal power from the people and their representatives.