Had you read the second article, it would have explained for you that the language of the Supremacy Clause does NOT have a "plain meaning." In the Federal Convention, Hamilton proposed what was a effectively an unlimited government with a supreme executive branch having a President for life. And here you sit, calling me a conspiracy theorist. In Federalist 75 Hamilton states flatly the necessity for treaties to be conducted in SECRET. and you call me a conspiracy "theorist"? What is the Supreme Law of the Land drafted in secret as ratified by a two thirds of a minimum quorum if not conspiratorial?
No, you are simply ignorant and delusional.
Again, you’re assigning evil motives to Hamilton when there are reasonable, non-evil explanations for what he proposed in regard to treaties. Those kinds of thought processes are typical for conspiracy theorists. No insult intended, but you appear to assume the worst rather than accept the simpler, more likely explanation.
You also claim I’m delusional, but my opinion (that treaties don’t amend the US Constitution) is not unusual. Plus the article I linked to had quotes from Supreme Court decisions that quite clearly said treaties do not supersede the Constitution. I dare say my point of view is well supported, even if there’s a remote chance that what you propose is true, that Hamilton and others conspired (that’s why I called it a conspiracy theory) to subvert the amendment process.
In regards to the fact that treaties were listed as justification for the Endangered Species Act, that could simply mean that’s why the law was written. In other words, the treaties prompted the law to be written, but that doesn’t mean the law was automatically constitutional. All law would still need to pass constitutional muster, but that’s what we’re disagreeing about.
It’s not like the government doesn’t pass all sorts of extra-constitutional laws all the time. It does! In most cases, they don’t even bother to claim what part of the Constitution justifies a given law. The Democrats in particular think they can pass pretty much whatever they want. They certainly don’t need a treaty to justify trampling the US Constitution.
Like I wrote, we can agree to disagree. I mean you no disrespect. I just disagree with your opinion that treaties are higher than the Constitution. If what you say is true, then government could pass a treaty banning any or all of the provision of the Bill of Rights. It could theoretically pass a treaty saying the president is elected by a simple vote of the Senate! Sorry, but that’s ridiculous.