Regarding "a treaty cannot supercede the Constitution" . . .

According to the supremacy clause, the constitution itself plus legislation and treaties passed in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land.

In Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall ranked the three in the order they were listed.  The Constitution sorta' trumped legislation which sorta' outranked treaties, BUT

When a treaty is ratified, which requires a supermajority in the Senate,  it IS the supreme law of the land until repealed, or supreceded by another treaty.  The supreme court can find legislation unconstitutional and it has.  So, it can find provisions of treaties violate the constitution in specific cases.

By my reading of the supremacy clause, court rulings are NOT the supreme law of the land.  To become supreme law of the land should, in my opinion, require supporting legislation.

According to the material here, http://www.buildfreedom.com/condel1.htm reading the constitution competently requires a 26th grade education.

No, the treaty cannot supercede the constitution.  BUT, it, like the constitution itself, can become supreme law of the land once it is ratified "in pursuance thereof".  And its provisions, like the provisions of legislation, can be quite different than the practices long established and accepted.

It might actually require a constitutional amendment declaring the treaty BY NAME to be void to overturn it.  At least, that's one way it might be accomplished.

DC Treybil

 Hey, Dennis!  Yes, I am aware of the law and the cases you cited about how a treaty cannot supercede the US Constitution.  My point is that Obama simply disregards the law and does as he pleases. He has done this many times and says he will ignore both Congress and the courts to do as he sees fit. Obama is a very lawless revolutionary bent on "change" and will not be constrained. He is very clearly a dictator in the Marxist tradition, and the D.C. establishment is quite complicit in aiding and abetting the socialist coup.     David McElroy

Not to defend Obama, but he didn't invent the concept of ignoring the Constitution.  Not later than the VietNam "conflict", the USoA waged an undeclared war.  Then there's the spectacle of FDR trying to pack the court to get around Congress and the people - the ultimate departure from the Constitution, as I understand it.  (The guy at buildfreedom.com that I linked to has a very different understanding.  According to his reading, FDR did not necessarily violate original intent.) 

Not long ago, I read an obituary of a reknown liberty advocate (whose name eludes me at this moment) who asserted that almost every act of the federal government since the Civil War was extra-constitutional.

I agree that some of Obama's agenda is also extra-constitutional, but it's just not new.  If that obituary is any indication, such activity on the part of the federal government goes back at least to the Civil War.

DC Treybil

At the risk of beating a deceased equine, I want to make two points not explicitly stated earlier:

By the way I read the supremacy clause, it is entirely possible to enact into law things contrary to established practices, either by legislation or treaties.

Thus:

1.  Not good (which is to say bad) laws can be passed without overturning the constitution.

2.  Obversely, just because a law does not overturn the constitution does not make the law a not bad (which is to say good) law.

I think the processes of the first 6 articles must be tempered by the objectives stated in the preamble.  It is my understanding that courts officially ignore the preamble as "preferatory text".

If the courts ignore it, the people must not.

If there is a solution, it is to be found among the citizenry-at-large.

The constitution does not provide any means to render court rulings or executive orders "the supreme law of the land".

If a remedy is available from within constitutional officialdom, that remedy is impeachment of judges who wander too far from the constitution, substituting their will for that of the people.  And it is impeachment of executive branch officials who stray too far from the constitution in their authorship or enforcement of executive orders.

This should have already been happening at a very high rate.  It hasn't.

An approach to make that happen does not spring immediately to mind.

DC Treybil