[El Gato]

If that is not bad enough, the constitution states that treaties supersede all laws AND the constitution.

No it does not. Treaties supercede *State* constitutions and laws, but not the federal Constitution.

To believe otherwise reflects a belief that the founders couldn't parse a simple English sentence.

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.

NOT

any Thing in (the Constitution)or (Laws of any State)

[Avoiding_Sulla]

I know what it says. I also know how the bastards tried to ignore a comma in the second amendment by setting up arguments in that regard for year; and would have gotten away with it were it not due to the current SCOTUS complement.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

***Update***

To believe otherwise reflects a belief that the founders couldn't parse a simple English sentence. -- El Gato

For a unsettling example of how things may not work out as you and I would like them, I have below another section of the Constitution with the same structure as the one in question.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 3

The accepted reading of this delineation is (Power to fill up all vacancies that may happen) (during the Recess of the Senate, by...) and NOT (vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by...).

For a recent example: GWB appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN during a recess of Congress even though the vacancy did not occur during such a recess.

Thus I think we have VERY good precedent to be troubled by the wording of Article VI, Clause 2.

If you can go on to finally allay my fears here, I'd certainly appreciate your effort.

[Carry_Okie]

under the Authority of the United States,

Although we agree to our interpretation of these words, they can in fact be construed to mean just about anything. For example, as CIC, the President could negotiate and the Senate ratify a treaty surrendering the militia to the UN. As CIC, military surrender is under his authority.

In short, they are weasel words because they can be used that way, not the ironclad limit we see in them. There are lots of ways the limits could have been stated that the Founders chose NOT to use for reasons I cover in Skinning Cats.