Thanks for the post. The supremacy clause of the Constitution means that any foreign treaty can trump Constitutional guarantees. It was easy to forget this under a Republican Senate and President, but will soon rear its ugly head. Most Americans don't realize this, an it will take some time to communicate this effectively.
Sorry to interrupt your thinking, but you have that ass backwards. Congress can pass no law that is not in pursuance to the Constitution/Bill of Rights (first ten Amendments), treaty laws notwithstanding. There is an hierarchical and logical flow to Article VI, para 2, the supremacy clause.
Lemme rephrase that: Congress can pass laws based on treaties so long as they are in pursuance to the Bill of Rights/Constitution.
What is it about the Bill of Rights that causes many folks to believe it is not part of the Constitution, and, in fact, is the reason the Constitution was written?
The Constitution/Bill of Rights is not a suicide note. Over-riding the supreme law with conflicting treaty laws nullifies the whole document and brings to naught the guarantee and protection of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I wouldn't think so. The Constitution is acknowledged supremacy in law, under which is legislation and treaties. Legislation can't change Constitutional provisions, so neither can treaties. They can be made part of the law, but they can as easily be repealed.
That means, for instance, a treaty that attempted to ban the ownership and possession of any firearm would be unconstitutional, or a treaty that demands censorship on the press.
Horse Pucky, it means no such thing. Although the President, Congress and the Courts may twist it the way they are wont to do, to other parts of the Constitution.
The Supremecy clause says:
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.
The critical parts of that are "and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States" and "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Taking the latter first, that is properly parsed as "any Thing in the (Constitution or Laws of any State), not as you seem to believe, (any Thing in the (Constitution) or (Laws of any State). It's State laws and State Constitutions that may be overridden by not only treaties, but also by federal laws and the Federal Constitution. (Provided the laws are an exercise of a delegated federal power of course).
That leads into the first item. The Treaties must be made "under the Authority of the United States". The United States have no authority to trump Constitutional Guarantees, thus they cannot delegate or give away the authority to do so, since they don't have it in the first place.
Not that the 'Rats, and some RINOs won't try of course. In which case, in the final analysis, we have the guarantee of the Second Amendment. Blue helmets make such wonderful aim points.
Your rights come from God not the Constitution.