“In seven years discussing this on FR, I’ve never seen anyone cite such a case, and believe me, there has been occasion.”
Fairly trivial to accomplish. Took about five minutes.
First, follow this link to the discussion on Find Law:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html#1
Reat this section:
Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties ‘’are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.’’ 328 As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated. (329)
There are several cases listed in the footnotes. For example:
Footnote 329] ‘’The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.’’ Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853). ‘’It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.’’ The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. ( 78 U.S.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).
I think the confusion here is this phrase in the Constitution: “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.”
Reading the article referenced above, it appears that the legal consensus is this phrase lists a hierachy of authority. First, the Constitution. Then the co-equal laws and treaties but lesser authorities.
Yawn.
This is dicta. I've given you an example of a treaty that is SO FAR beyond the scope of the Constitution that there is no question it should not be allowed to stand. It stands.
Show me a case where a provision of a treaty has been ruled unconstitutional and thereby invalidated. Name one.