[FreeReign]

[O'Connor]:"Well, you always have the power of entering into treaties with other nations which also become part of the law of the land, but I can't see the day when we won't have a constitution in our nation."

In the above quote, it sort of sounds like O'Connor is trying to contrast treaties and the U.S. Constitution, as if a treaty can usurpt the authority of the Constitution.

The power of entering into treaties is part of the Constitution, and any aspect of a treaty must be Constitutional and it must be ratified into law. The contrasting "but", in the above O'Connor quote makes it sound like O'Connor believes that treaties can override the U.S. Constitution.

Concerning Breyer, his remarks now explain his past rulings and the combination of his remarks and the past rulings now makes him deserving of impeachment.

[Jack Black]

Article VI

...
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.

I think this is the clause they intend to use to hold treaties equal in law with the Constitution. As I read it treaties are superior to State law based on this clause. That alone is scary stuff.

[donmeaker]

Treaties do override the constitution, mores the pity. For example Gongress has the power granted in the Constitution to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Said power is limited by treaty, and if one was issued, the captured foreign enemy merchanct would have a case to sue in US courts that the issued Letter was in violation of treaties which ban the use of private vessels as privateers.