[RepRivFarm]

I fail to see how a mere treaty with a foreign power or corrupt organization can trump the US Constitution. Could a UN treaty end free speech, allow UN “peace keeper” troops to be housed in private residences, end trial by jury or allow UN “inspectors” to enter my residence without a warrant? If a treaty only ratified by the US Senate can end the Bill of Rights why are we signing such treaties?

Article VI, section 2 of the U. S. Constitution which reads: "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, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

emphasis mine

[Carry_Okie]

The problem with the Supremacy Clause is the commas surrounding the phrase, "under the authority of the United States." If that means that these treaties are limited by the authority of the United States, that's one thing. If it means that the United States shall then enforce its treaties no matter what, that's quite another. I really hate that first comma.

There was a screw-job at operation as regards international law in the drafting of the Constitution. It was intentional. That history, and its import is covered here.

[Pox]

And your emphasis simply shows that treaties and federal laws along with our Constitution are the supreme laws of the land and trump state constitutions and laws.

The real question is, do treaties trump our National Constitution? Up until now, the answer would be no, but I think that SCOTUS late last year accepted a case that will answer this question.