The Constitution, Plain and Simple
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html
Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."
All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":
(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).
A TREATY MAY NOT DO OR EXCEED WHAT THE CONGRESS IS CHARGED TO DO OR WHAT IT IS FORBIDDEN TO DO. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY SUPERSEDES, OVERRULES, AND PRECLUDES ANY CONTRARY TREATY AUTHORITY.
Thus, if a proposed treaty would violate any provision of the Constitution, it may not even be seriously considered or debated, much less be ratified and implemented because the same restrictions that were placed by the Constitution on the U.S. Federal government are also imposed on any treaty provision.
TREATY EMBROILMENT IS SO DANGEROUS AND SO IMPORTANT, THAT TO FURTHER LIMIT AND RESTRICT THEIR MAKING, ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 2 ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT: "...SHALL HAVE POWER, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, TO MAKE TREATIES, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCUR; [EMPHASIS ADDED.]"
This provision accomplishes two things: 1) it prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home."(1)
Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.
Yes.
Exactly.
UN can consider we are bound by any treaty all they want, regardless of who signs it.
It is not and will not be recognized by us.
Gotta wonder when this article was written. Since ratification of the 17th Amendment, which enabled POPULAR election of US senators, senators are no longer "selected" by their respective state delegations/governments and consequently are no longer directly beholden to the state. Their constituents are in fact the people back home. It's likely that ratification of the 17th was not a stellar moment for the sovereign states and it seems that history bears that out.
"Of course if the treaty is a TAX..." - Chief Justice Roberts. ;-P