A Treaty does not override the Constitution, If they go along with this it would be considered TREASON under our Constitution.Not to mention it would absolutely be the Flash Point for another American Revolution.
All physical evidence indicates they have already done so, massively, for which there may be good reason. Let's take a look at the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution:
The obvious saving caveat would seem to be the phrase, "under the Authority of the United States." Most people believe that phrase renders any treaty that involves powers not enumerated in the Constitution void. In other words, the government of the United States does not have the authority EITHER to enact laws or agree to terms of a treaty with any other nation the enforcement of which would require powers that exceed its Constitutionally enumerated powers. So in theory at least, a citizen whose rights have been violated by an unconstitutional treaty should be able to sue and have the treaty thrown out.
It's never happened.
The other way to read it is to place the Constitutions and treaties at parity and that both are subject to "the Authority of the United States," with whatever that might be left unspecified.
Go ahead and try reading it that way. It works linguistically.
In response to Patrick Henry's objections to the clause at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Madison argued that said "Authority" was subject to the Constitution's enumerated powers and so did Randolph. Unfortunately there may be more to this.
It is my opinion that the protestations of Madison, Governor Randolph, et al., at the Virginia Ratifying Convention might have been cover for a hidden agenda to federalize the law of the land. Hamilton did lie through his teeth arguing in Federalist 75 that the text of the Supremacy Clause as applied to treaties was a thoroughly debated point at the Federal Convention. The problem is, it was in fact never a point of debate at the Federal Convention. I've read the whole thing and it is not there.
I really don't like that comma before that key phrase. Does it mean that "the Authority of the United States" is the final determinant or is it the powers enumerated in the Constitution? The two are different. Most folks hold a subconscious hierarchy in our laws, with the Constitution at the top, followed by treaties, and then Congressional statutes and finally administrative rules and regulations. It may not be that way in legal fact. Note that the beginning phrase of the clause places Statutes "in Pursuance thereof," but DOES NOT qualify treaties similarly. Instead, treaties are joined to the Constitution with the conjunction "and." Then it completes the list of items with the comma prior to the phrase "under the Authority of the United States." You and I see that authority as limited by the Constitution. It may not be.
There was an element among the founders that may well have secretly intended Federal usurpations of power against the liberties of the people by federalizing legislative and regulatory powers then to be subordinated to the very internationalist agenda we see today. To see “originalism” otherwise may well be a case of willfully selective blindness as to the founders’ original REAL legal intent hidden in plain sight in The Federalist #75.