That’s what I said.
You can argue that it’s against the SPIRIT of the Constitution and the Founders to subordinate our rights to outside authorities, but it would be strictly legal. And as I also said, you can bet that whatever it said in the treaty would be stretched further by liberal judges and politicians as time went by, which is what has happened with the Geneva Convention.
Where further issues might arise would be if the International Court passed measures that directly violated “inalienable” rights given in the Constitution, such as a ban on religious expression or freedom of speech. But that’s a worry for the future, and in any case we seem to be doing pretty well having those rights carved away slice by slice without any foreign help.
After prefacing your comment by saying it's "arguable" that the ICC treaty would be constitutional. It isn't arguable at all. If it's ratified by the senate, it's the law of the land. I get frustrated when I see posts like several on this thread that indicate too many conservatives don't know the plain language of the Constitution's finer points. How can conservatives preserve, protect and defend it if they don't know what it says?