If a treaty has been ratified by the Senate, then the Judge is correct in so far as treaties, but not international law, are concerned. Treaties override laws, that much is plain. I don't like that because it allows for no change of mind. It's the only way a Congress can bind future Congresses.
Heck even the Constitution can be amended. I think a couple of such amendments, or one with a couple of provisions, are needed. One provision be that ratification of treaties must be by recorded vote of BOTH houses, not just the Senate and by the same supermajority required to pass a Constitutional amendment. The second provision being that by the same supermajority vote of BOTH houses and upon signature by the President, the United States be able, as a matter of domestic law, to overide any provision of a treaty or may withdraw from the treaty completely.
I don't think the original authors ever envisioned treaty provisions would affect individual citizens, nor attempt under color of "treaty" to overide Constitutional provisions, as they can today. This oversite needs to be corrected. Some say treaties even override the Constitution itself, but a close reading of the applicable provisions indicates this not to be the case, although they may override state Constitutions.
I don't see where it says that treaties can bind future Congresses. My reading of the Constitution is that they can overturn treaties at will.
After re-reading the first few clauses of Article VI, this is a question that immediatly jumped to mind. It does appear to me that treaties can violate the 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"It doesn't say that treaties must abide by the Constitution. I guess it depends on what exactly "the Authority of the United States" means. I would think it simply means a treaty signed by the President and approved by the Senate. In which case it seems that any treaty passed by the Senate (and signed by the President) has equal bearing with the Constitution itself. Obviously, this is very, very bad and should definatly be changed.
I'd be very interested in hearing which provisions more clearly define this, or is it simply implied from the powers relegated to and against the government. In the latter case, it's only a matter of time before it is ignored. I'd hate to see a liberal President and a liberal Senate agree to a "Handgun Disarmament Treaty", or something of the sort.