Technically, the SC has always applied "strict scrutiny" to such rights and the question of whether they can be removed.
The key clause on our point in the decision, cited from the Riggs case is:
It would not be contended that [the acceptance of a treaty as the law of the land] extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [354 U.S. 1, 18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."
In essence, the statement divides the constitution into fundamental and less-than-fundamental structures. It is a distinction that is impossible to maintain, as witness the recent SC decision on capital punishment where Kennedy borrowed foreign precedents. The Reid case and its relatives are not, I suspect, controlling in terms of treaties. I still would like to see the Bricker amendment passed. I will, however, say that I did not give any hint of subtlety in my response and maybe I should have. You are making a good argument; I just don't think it is sufficient to override the SC's use of the Geneva convention today. Well, I hope that this is coherent and thank you for a brisk exchange.
McVey
I don't think the Court was trying to divide the Constitution into different structures. I think they were trying to iron out the problem where a treaty didn't afford certain rights guaranteed by our Constitution. If, as some have argued in the past, that a treaty is considered the supreme law of the land, and thus on par with the Constitution, then, as the Court in Reid warned, "such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V." Thus, the Constitution remains supreme over a treaty. If a treaty were on par with the Constitution, then a document like the International Criminal Court, which Clinton signed onto and Bush unsigned, would have amended the Constitution to eliminate the Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees we currently enjoy.
With respect to Bricker, it probably is unnecessary in light of what Reid held.
As for today's decision, I haven't had a chance to read yet, so I can't comment on what the court did with the Geneva Convention and the Constitution.