>You're referring to what is known as the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

I am also certain that I am not qualified too.

Anyways, I was not completely unfamiliar with this, barring the name, for several years ago (1994) there was reform of the Argentinean Constitution (which the original from 1853 was strongely influenced by the US Constitution) and in the new Constitution they worded it in an ambiguos way that it can be interpreted as if the international treaties were above the Constitution (and some people argued that they were), and my father (by that time a retired Justice) was furious and explained to me why they could not be above the Constitution (of course I did not understand the arguments then, so imagine now that my memory took a toll <g>). Anyways, what I meant is that to my knowledge, and even reading your links, it is clear to me that the treaties are still law, unless they are unconstitutional for the Constitution has supremacy over the treaties.