That’s correct, it only takes 2/3 of the senate present, however;
Treaties that are not in accordance with the Constitution are considered void.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html
Poppycock. If that was true the Endangered Species Act would have no teeth at all in Federal court.
Name ONE treaty that has ever been voided by the courts.
OK, now I'll name you a treaty that so WILDLY exceeds Constitutionally enumerated powers as to be laughable: The Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere commits all land in the United States and its entire economy to saving EVERY species, essentially claiming the power to halt natural selection in its tracks.
Your link to Justia is one I’ve not seen before, and its title “Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power” is an intriguing one.
However, it seems conflicted as it lays out the various arguments. It’s not clear where there is always a majority opinion, or what the legalize means in some instances. I very much like the way the paragraph with footnote 340 ends. But is it really precedent setting? The paragraph that follows it seems to dampen that hope.
BTW, it’s not even clear what date this piece was published and when it has been updated (if it has).
What individuals might find troubling is in one of the paragraphs where it appears the court was using an early version of “compelling state interests” to violate the constitution “because we might not have much left if we don’t.” That’s the one which ends “Here a national interest of very nearly the first magnitude is involved. It can be protected only by national action in concert with that of another power. The subject-matter is only transitorily within the State and has no permanent habitat therein. But for the treaty and the statute there soon might be no birds for any powers to deal with. We see nothing in the Constitution that compels the Government to sit by while a food supply is cut off and the protectors of our forests and our crops are destroyed.”344 Maybe I overly cynical, but doesn’t it appear to contain a bit too crisis mongering, too end-of-the-worldish, to feel comfortable? And again, it’s not clear which faction wrote the opinion, and I could not follow the footnote to gain more clarity.
I wish you to presume I’m a numbskull. Heck, let state outright that I am. But just maybe I’m an influential, patriotic one. Convince me that all the opinions in this marvelous link support the notion that no treaty will be permitted to violate the constitution despite the supremacy clause.
I really want to believe that there is strong precedent to protecting our constitution, and that the treaty power cannot legitimatly be used as an inside-Washington way of circumventing the constitutional provision of needing ¾ of the states to ratify any amendments (instead of only 34 senators).