[general_re]

I think we would have been better off had the Constitution been clear that no treaty provision ratified by the senate which was otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution could be effective unless it were adopted and ratified by the states in the same manner as an amendment to the Constitution. But, that's not what the Constitution says.

But that is basically what constitutional jurisprudence says, though - cf. Reid v. Covert.

[CatoRenasci]

Thanks for the reference. You should specifiy it's Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (Reid II) and not the earlier case that affirmed the conviction.

I think Reid is narrower than I would like: the treaty provision would have to be explicitly contrary to the Consititution, rather than where the Constitution is silent (e.g. the Holland case cited in the majority option in Reid II), but it is some comfort.

The more important question is whether Reid II is still good law.