It effectively has been so amended in any number of ways.
For example, a President negotiating in secret with a single foreign power could propose a treaty to Congress and this treaty could be enacted by three members of Congress.
In theory, yes. In practice, we don't know how badly abused that process is because we don't have benefit of the records of quora at the time. You clearly have a hard time accepting the premise that the Founders would have accepted Patrick Henry's rat. They had to. The country was broke and needed loans. I am virtually certain that our foreign-born "banker" knew that such were the terms.
Since when did the Founders envision multilateral treaties either? As it is, the President secretly negotiates with collections of foreign powers, each capable of post facto exceptions AND adjudications that change the meaning of the terms after US ratification. Both effectively change the terms of a treaty after the fact.
Do you hear any screaming about that?
This treaty could enact a President for Life, re-instate slavery, or any number of things all without following the amendment process. Do you think the founders intended to give such powers to the federal government?
Treaties acknowledge the creation of a nation, including the United States. They also include provisions for national surrender in which a foriegn power can dictate the form of government (ask Germany or Japan). That's not in the Constitution either.
Surely, they foresaw this possibility.
Yup, and they accepted it as a remote risk. They left controlling the terms up to the people, and so it remains. The article says that too.
The obvious inference is that they did and considered treaties to be co-equal with other laws passed by the Congress but subordinate to the Constitution.
Of course they did, which the article very clearly cites.
We’ll start with the scope of their powers. The Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 states:
“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.”
Treaty law supersedes both Congressional statues and all state laws, which given the abuse of the Commerce and General Welfare clauses should be enough to give one cause for pause. The obvious saving caveat is the phrase, “under the Authority of the United States.” It should be fairly obvious that this phrase renders any treaty that involves powers not enumerated in the Constitution void. In other words, the government of the United States does not have the authority to agree to terms with any other nation, the enforcement of which would require powers that exceed its Constitutionally enumerated powers. So in theory at least, a citizen whose rights have been violated by an unconstitutional treaty should be able to sue and have the treaty thrown out.
This is entirely consistent with the case citations and the article provided.
Yup. It hasn't stopped them, has it? No matter how outrageous the terms of a treaty have become, including committing the entire economy and all land to stopping natural selection or enforcing provisions against parents of their minor children, not one treaty has been legally voided on the grounds that it exceeded its Constitutional authority. No matter how bogus was its ratification, including providing no proof that there was either a quorum or that two-thirds of "senators present" voted for it, not one treaty has been legally voided on the grounds that it was ratified improperly. What makes you think that, after all these decades of "settled law" the SCOTUS will do it now?
Thus I think it highly appropriate, no, critical, that the people of this country understand the kind of gun under which they're living. The foes of liberty have been clever enough to use treaty law to nibble around the edges of our unalienable rights by passing broad, obscure, feel-good provisions and then changing the effective terms in Federal Court. Knowing that might even make citizens just a tiny bit more vigilant about matters of creeping tyranny.
I see it, sir.