longtermmemory, unless you can substantiate your assertion above with reasonable references, I respectfully disagree with your statement concerning a treaty trumping any part of the Constitution as evidenced by the following.
"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." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793."Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
"2. ..., it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." --Reid v. Covert, 1956.
In other words, if the federal government needs a specific power to negotiate a treaty which the states have not already delegated to it via the Constitution, the Founding States had intended for the federal government to do the following. The federal government is expected to propose an amendment to the Constitution which would formally delegate the needed power to Congress if the Article V state majority chose to ratify the proposed amendment.
quite all right.
There is a vienna treaty that has a valid until signed provision.
Dick morris, though often wrong, gets this one correct.
Also Henry Kissinger is on record as using treaty to ovcome government limitations imposed by the constitution.