Treaties do not trump the Constitution; treaties become a part of the constitution.
''Article VI
[2] This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.''
Thus, the provisions of any ratified treaties become co-equal with the Constitution, but not part of it. The nasty bit here is that the provisions of ratified treaties are immune to alteration, supplantation, or cancellation by either the formal amendment process or declaration from a Constitutional convention.
Now, of course, there is no possible way that the Framers intended this result; all they intended by this section (as the Federalist Papers bear out very clearly) is for the several states to be unable to override or interfere with any provisions of a treaty ratified by the United States.
It has never yet been ruled upon, to my knowledge, what happens if a provision of a ratified treaty directly contradicts one or another portion of the Constitution. This question will surely arise shortly, given all these half-assed treaties that have, unfortunately, been ratified by the assorted vermin in the Senate. No bets on whether the Supremes will be able to cobble together a majority to support the clear Constitutional intent of the Framers.
The successful argument against would have to be something along the lines of: ''Is it the Court's considered opinion that, for example, James Madison would have countenanced for a microsecond the delegation of control over any part of the sovereign territory of the United States to a group of people dedicated to the very destruction of the United States, _____ (fill in your favourite such group)??''
And we'll be reduced to hoping that the Supremes answer ''No.'' Yet one more example, of many, why ONLY originalists are to be allowed onto the Supreme Court.
I'm frankly puzzeled. Our Constitution is the law of the land, therefore the "Authority of the United States". Any treaty that exceeds the authority granted by the Constitution cannot be ratified as it is illegal from inception.
Can this actually be interpreted any other way?