Treaties as law:
As a matter of domestic law, treaties – like statutes – must meet the requirements of the Constitution; no treaty provision may have force of law in the United States if it conflicts with the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Thus, the United States is unable to accept a treaty obligation which limits constitutionally protected rights, as in the case of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which restricts the freedom of speech and association guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Consequently, when deliberating on ratification of a treaty concerning the rights of individuals, Congress must give careful consideration to the specific provisions of the treaty and to the question of consistency with existing State and federal law, both constitutional and statutory. Where treaty provisions conflict with the Constitution, the United States makes reservations to them simply because neither the President nor Congress has the power to override the Constitution. In some cases, it has been considered necessary for the United States to state its understanding of a particular provision or obligation in a treaty, or to make a declaration as to how it intends to apply that provision or meet that obligation.
All the more reason why a Supreme Court Justice who seeks international law to base a ruling is just WRONG!
once obama gets his two SC justices into the supreme court, what is stopping him from pushing this treaty through?