Article 6:
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.
This means that a ratified treaty can supersede the constitution according to the constitution.
No it doesn't. It means that ratified treaties are equal to US laws. Just like any other situation where two duly enacted (or ratified) laws conflict, the judiciary is supposed to rule on which supersedes the other.
I read it to mean the federal Constitution, federal laws, and federal treaties override state constitutions and laws.
I’ve long wished the founders had specified stronger majorities and other procedures that would make passing laws and treaties more difficult. And more limits on presidential authority.
The acknowledgement of our basic torights and freedoms can be negated by the 3/4 of politicians over righteous objections of the minority.
No it doesn't.
“…treaties can supersede the Constitution, according to the Constitution.”
I always took that passage to mean that treaties, just like valid federal laws and the Constitution itself, were binding on all the states, not that treaties, in effect, amended the Constitution
Thanks for looking it up. That was my understanding, too.
But don’t forget the Biden Doctrine. I was pleased to hear Cong. Boebert mention it last week: “No Amendment is absolute.” So, apparently, even if the treaty leaves us some rights, the President can declare an emergency or something, and POOF they are gone.
Try it this way.