Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
It is, I believe, a principle in law that if two acts (of the same weight) touch on the same subject that the latter of the two takes precedence over the earlier.
I am wondering if a treaty, properly ratified under the Constitution, would, if it conflicted with a clause of the Constitution, become the “supreme Law of the Land” in preference to the Constitution.
Suppose, for instance, that we ratified a treaty with another nation that jaywalkers in our respective capitals are henceforth to be punished by being drawn and quartered. This treaty specifically bypasses any restraint on the ability of each nation to administer cruel and unusual punishments. Would this treaty hold up as legitimate or be struck down as a violation of the Eighth Amendment?
I am looking, specifically, for any precedents or reasonably close approximations thereto.
I am not looking for arguments on the advisability/morality/ethicality of such an end run around the Constitution, or of the specific hypothetical it involves.
I searched the board, but could not find an answer (but did find some interesting threads).