A treaty is not "the supreme Law of the Land" unless it is made "under the Authority of the United States." In other words, the United States must have the explicit Constitutional authority to do what the treaty requires or permits it to do. A lawful treaty certainly may not authorize or require the United States to do what the Constitution forbids.
Otherwise, a treaty would be equivalent to an Amendment to the Constitution--which requires a two thirds vote of the House and the Senate, and ratification by 3/4ths of the State legislatures. It makes no sense for treaties to require far less approval than Constitutional Amendments, if the Framers had intended treaties to have the same authority as the Constitution itself.
Such an interpretation would have the effect of rendering the limitations on the power of the Federal government found in the Constitution essentially meaningless.
As Alexander Hamilton explained: "If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed." ~ Federalist #33
Thomas Jefferson made the same point specifically in reference to treaties: “In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” ~ The writings of Thomas Jefferson: being his autobiography ..., Volume 9, page 181
Jefferson also said: “Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." ~ A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, p. 110. 1873.
The current law of the land, per the Supreme Court, is that "constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty." ~ Reid v. Covert
>>The current law of the land, per the Supreme Court, is that “constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty.” ~ Reid v. Covert <<
Isn’t it settled law? So why is the regime fighting it?