Constitutional Scholars, Here is a Treaties Vs Constitution Question?

Can't happen because when a treaty is ratified by the US senate it becomes part of the Supreme law of the land under Article VI of the United States Constitution. All international treaties signed and ratified by the US, like the UN charter for example, are just as much and equal American law as the constitution itself.

All treaties are agreed to by Congress, the central government.

Since the Constitution of the United States does not allow unguarded access to the Constitution by the central government, any government that signs treaties that would diminish the authority of the US Constitution could soon find itself lawfully ratified out of existence by the states who have full, complete and unguarded access to the Constitution.

If 3/4 of the states agree to abolish the government that signed such a treaty, the treaty would be null and void as the entity that signed it would not be around to enforce it.

If a treaty is in conflict with the US Constitution it can not be ratified. It could not become valid or operative as the treaty would be without authority. There can be no ratification without agreement. No one is authorized to bind the people without authority granted by the people and the only authority granted to anyone must be contained in the Constitution.

the treaty would never be ratified by a 2/3rds vote in the senate if it was in conflict the the constitution. but say that one was by complete oversight; the treaty would be thrown to the curb to uphold the constitution.

The action cannot be acted upon the people of the United States. It will not pass muster in the American Supreme Court, and Americans cannot be held to a ratified treaty that denies American liberty.

Congress approves our signing of treaties. That means they are supposed to REVIEW them to see if they are in conflict with our constitution. If was agree to be bound by a treaty and we later decide to ignore the treaty we are basically in breach of contract.

What sources do you expect to find? This "treaty vs constitution" issue is a recent dodge by Bush cronies to dismiss the idea that Spain may be within it rights to see charges against the Bush administration officials.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. There are no treaty authorities in the US that have the authority to change the Constitution, so they legally have to abide by it. Does this mean it always happens, of course not.