First of all, to state the obvious: If the President and 2/3 of the Senate could amend the Constitution, there would be no need for an arduous amendment process. Second, also obvious: the government erected by the Constitution is not sovereign in the European sense of the word, it exercises certain powers traditional to sovereignty, but only those delegated by the actual sovereign (the People of the United States).
Now, on to the language:
"...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I think the proper construction is: "any Thing in [the Constitution or Laws of any State] to the Contrary notwithstanding.", which, expanded to clarity would read "in the Constitution of any State or the Laws of any State". The intent was that individual states could not nullify treaties, either through their state constitutions or their state laws.
But the missing words "of any State" following "the Constitution" allows another construction, i.e., "any Thing [in the Constitution] or [Laws of any State] to the Contrary notwithstanding.", making any Thing refer to BOTH the Federal Constitution and to State laws.
I'm sure Obama and all of his followers prefer #2. And, given the ambiguity of the language, there may be no choice if the thing is pressed than to fight it out.
How bad do you think it's gonna be?
Pretty goddam bad. Probably all the other Families countries will line up against us. That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich, they should never let him get away with that, they was just asking for trouble.
Indeed there is. Considering the waffling and bombast cited in the article, one wonders if it was deliberate.
I think the proper construction is: "any Thing in [the Constitution or Laws of any State] to the Contrary notwithstanding.", which, expanded to clarity would read "in the Constitution of any State or the Laws of any State".
I had thought to remove the comma that makes the clause so ambiguous, but your version of it is more explicit.
We need to put together a list of these.
The intent was that individual states could not nullify treaties, either through their state constitutions or their state laws.
That certainly was the pitch, if not the intent. At this point, one has to wonder. Of course there's the maxim, "Never attribute to guile what can be explained by stupidity."
How bad do you think it's gonna be?
Ask Squantos or hiredhand about Chapter 4 in Shemitta. Bad, but using this plan laid out 3,000 years ago, we can do a lot to mitigate and control the outcome. I know this may look like spamming my book, but the system is simply amazing.