[piytar]

There has been a lot of debate about whether a treaty can supersede the Constitution. It's a murky area. My interpretation is that it can, but not in the realm of fundamental Constitutional rights. That's why Keller was so important — it declared the Second Amendment right to keep and bare arms to be “fundamental.”

Given the Keller and McDonald cases, the SCOTUS would be very likely to strike down the treaty as unconstitutional.

JMHO, of course. Why I copied a real lawyer. What's your take, jagusafr?

[jagusafr]

Agreed - if it ever came down to it, I think the Constitution would be read as prohibiting the entry into treaties that purport to overrule the Constitution. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be tried - frankly, we’ve de facto ceded sovereignty to the UN (IMHO) when we allow our troops to serve under a UN commander.

Colonel, USAFR

[johnny reb]

There has been a lot of debate about whether a treaty can supersede the Constitution. It's a murky area. My interpretation is that it can, but not in the realm of fundamental Constitutional rights.

Read the Missouri v Holland decision in 1920 and you will see where they are trying to go with this.(Wikipedia)It does say that a treaty cannot supersede the constitution.