I wouldn't worry too much about that. Treaties are superior to State law since they fall under the Supremacy Clause whereby (Constitutional) Federal laws trump State laws. A treaty can't be used as an end-run around the Constitution- a treaty that infringed on First Amendment rights, for example, would be just as unconstitutional as a law that did the same.
Well I hope your right. That is the million dollar question. Can you think of an example of a *treaty* being found unconstitutional? I can not. Can you think of an example of a *treaty* being treated like a law and challenged in court? I can not. Therefore, until I see these things happen, I will remain worried that the treaty mechanism is main one they will use to subvert the Constitution.
Just out of curiosity that's how I read Sandra Day O'Conners comments. How do you read them?