I may be in error, but I believe that after a treaty has been signed by a responsible (?) official and signed by the president, it must be
ratified by the Senate.
If the Senate does not ratify if, it remains in effect but not implemented. Thus it will be like a sword hanging over our heads, waiting
for a senate that will view the treaty favorably, and then ratify it. Thus making it the law of the land and in direct conflict with the constitution.
That question will of course be taken to the supreme court – - – - – - – - – - Guess where that would go?
The Senate does not have to ratify a treaty if it is signed by a president. Article II Section II specifies only the Senate by 2/3 vote. It also specifies that “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”" The president and the president’s staff and foreign policy experts
work together with other countries to draft treaties. Since the Senate has basically said, the ATT was dead upon arrival, john kerry and the president have run afoul of this Article, since they DO NOT have the consent of the Senate.
Even if ratified, a treaty CANNOT supersede any enumerated right set forth in the Constitution as the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. A ratified treaty CANNOT take the place of a Constitutional Convention and rewrite or replace any of the Amendments.
Do take note, though, of the “98% strategy” on arms treaties currently being deployed against Syria. Our administration appears to believe that if most other countries ban something and you do not, you are the rogue state. And now declares us to be one.
I volunteer to throw John Kerry over the White House fence so he can go look for his medals…
…and if the throw happens to land a little short, like impaling him on the wrought iron pointy tops of the fence?
I solemnly promise not to cry.