Re:I don't believe that. (Score 2)

The Supreme Court has talked about this on several occasions, and it's clear that the Constitution will always override a conflicting treaty. Here's two cases-- Missouri v. Holland, 252 US 416 (1920): "a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution." Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957): no "agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution...The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined..." So--treaty will trump any state law or state constitution, but cannot trump the Constitution. The more interesting question is when a treaty conflicts with an existing federal statute. In general, courts would analyze the case "as if" the treaty were another law passed by Congress. And there are several rules courts and lawyers (!) use to resolve apparent conflicts or inconsistencies. For instance, specific trumps the general, later-in-time, etc. Here's a vignette I remember from school: in the Fifties, a group of Southern Congressmen got together to try and pass a constitutional amendment that would clearly resolve this debate we're having--treaties would not apply internally to the US unless Congress passed specific implementation legislation. So, what do you think those Southern members were scared about? The United Nations Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.