I suggest you read, carefully, this article which goes into those legal distinctions, as I wrote them both.
The article’s author also misreads Hamilton’s intentions.
Poppycock. The United States was in debt to the point that it could not afford sufficient defense to preclude its reconquest. The French had dictated terms for loans because under the Articles of Confederation there was no way for the United States to assure that they would be repaid. The result is history.
The article claims Hamilton wanted much easier standards to pass treaties, because he wanted the ability to supersede the US Constitution. That’s certainly one possible interpretation, but it’s also possible he wanted lesser standards simply because he believe treaties couldn’t override constitutional provisions. That’s certainly a possible interpretation, too, and I think it’s a more reasonable one.
The Supremacy clause is pretty clear regardless of the so-called ambiguous placement of commas. You want me to believe the founders created a complex and extremely difficult hurdle for constitutional amendments, but they wanted to amend the Constitution with treaties using a simple 2/3 vote of senators? Sorry, I’m not buying that.
We can agree to disagree.