Article six of the U.S. Constitution:
...”and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land...”
Keep reading, my FRiend. US courts have ruled numerous times that treaties don’t trump the US 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. “
Contextually - *this constitution*...AND all treaties made... shall be the supreme law of the land.
This does not say that the treaty is superior in the least.
If there is conflict, we have to ask how an unconstitutional treaty, which does not require anything near the difficulty of an amendment to be passed, was ratified in the first place.
Good luck with the argument, of course.
Federalist 33 and 44 deal with the supremacy clause, mainly as a relation of the federal constitution and laws to those of the states. Treaties would not be allowed by the states as they might contradict the national government’s foreign policy, or that of other states. There is a good discussion of the notion that laws MADE PURSUANT TO the constitution are the supreme law of the land, with examples given of those that are not so. One may infer that the same would apply to treaties.
Federalist 64 deals more with treaties themselves, Publius’ argument here is more along the lines of the necessity of treaties being honored, and a rebuke of those who think that treaties, like legislative acts, can be repealed at will without serious international relations consequences.
None of these hint that a treaty supersedes the constitution in any form.
“Article six of the U.S. Constitution:
...”and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land...””
It’s well settled that the Constitution needs to be intercepted in such a way as to avoid conflicting clauses. Therefore a treaty cannot be contrary to any part of the Constitution. So just as any law passed by Congress is assumed null and void from it’s effective date if it violates the terms of the Constitution, any treaty must be treated in the same way.
One clause of the Constitution cannot nullify or alter another of itself or in any action done under it’s provision. Or, to put it shorter, the Constitution has no poison pills.