"He points out that in the Hamdan decision, John Roberts disregarded "the plain text of the [Constitution's] Supremacy Clause . . . which unambiguously states: ' . . . all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.' "
"Moreover, Freiman warns us: "[Roberts's] willingness to erase the word 'Treaties' from our Constitution and laws might mark [him and his two colleagues] not just as jurists willin g to depart from the plain meaning of legal texts, but also as legal isolationists, turning away from the treaties that bind this nation to the civilized world." (Emphasis added)"
My understanding of the treaty provision of the Constitution is that it gives treaties the same validity as any Congressional law, which is considered the "supreme law of the land" as well. Treaties do not and can not, however, supersede any portion of the United States Constitution. (This is evident by the fact that, in the case of many treaties, Congress must pass statutes to bring the laws of the United States into conformance with provisions of a signed treaty - something that would be unnecessary if that treaty had more force than Congressional laws or the Constitution). If they could, then theoretically, we could assign the election of the President and members of Congress to, oh, say, the U.N. simply by signing a treaty that says so, could we not?
There are a bunch that do and on a grand scale, particularly the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (1941).
When I stop laughing, at least I'll know not to take this ass clown seriously. "Civilzed world" indeed. Bad as we are, we're still head and shoulders above twits like France, no doubt revered by the author.