It is referring to anything in the individual states' Constitutions or laws…..Meaning the States laws or Constitutions can not supersede the U.S. constitution.

I do not believe that this clause has anything to do with FOREIGN treaties at all, it has to do with treaties being made between the Federal and individual State governments.

Thanks again!

I have something important to add though. Art. I sec 8 must always be added to the equation. Some may use you're insight to point out that "therefore the Federal Government has all Authority over the States (these united states), even over the Constitutions of the individual States". In truth this is true, but this does not make the 10th amendment void as some may claim. The Federal Government and it's laws ARE supreme, but only in such areas as they have been given specific enumerated power.

Also taking the case to the absurd helps drive the point home on a more theoretical level. A treaty could be signed which says "everybody has to give their stuff to Belgium then go drown in a lake." Could the intent have been for that to become law without recourse or appeal? If the answer is "no" then well where do you draw the line happy and absurd treaties? Where the government unilaterally deems auspicious or… the Constitution?

Nice to know politicians got my panties in a twist again all over nothing.

Because the Second Amendment, like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, is a restraint on federal power, the federal government cannot use the treaty power to circumvent a limitation placed on its powers. That would make a clause in the Constitution superior to the Constitution itself. Thus, the federal government cannot bind the American people, their individual rights, or their property, through a treaty.

Edmund Randolph, Governor of the Virginia, and a delegate to the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1788 made the following statement concerning the federal government’s treaty power during the debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

“I conceive that neither the life nor property of any citizen, nor the particular right of any state, can be affected by a treaty.”

George Nicholas stated that the federal government could not make any treaty that embraced objects not within the scope of its delegated powers:

“The provision of the 6th article is, that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. They can, by this, make no treaty which shall be repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, or inconsistant with the delegated powers. The treaties they make must be under the authority of the United States, to be within their province. It is sufficiently secured, because it only declares that, in pursuance of the powers given, they shall be the supreme law of the land, notwithstanding any thing in the Constitution or laws of the particular states.”

Mr. Corbin asserted that the treaty power pertained to the States:

“But, say gentlemen, all treaties made under this Constitution are to be the supreme law of nations; that is, in their way of construction, paramount to the Constitution itself, and the laws of Congress. It is as clear as that two and two make four, that the treaties are to be binding on the states only.”

Mr. Corbin’s observation was in total harmony with the Constitution. Since the Constitution is a compact between the individual States, not the people, as comprising one nation, it follows that the treaty power would be confined to the States. This is further verified by the fact that the treaty making power is vested in the Senate and the President. [See Article II, Clause 2] The Senate, as originally conceived, is the representative of the States and was appointed directly by the legislatures of the several States. The President is elected by electors appointed in a manner prescribed by the legislatures of the several States. Thus, the power to make treaties is within the exclusive control of the States. The House of Representatives, the so-called voice of the people, is excluded from the treaty making process.

If the treaty power was as extensive as some believe, then a corrupt President, with the aid of a sympathetic Senate, could conspire with a foreign power or entity, like the United Nations, and nullify the Constitution. Thus, they could dissolve the Union and make the States subject to a foreign jurisdiction. James Madison, in the Virginia debates referenced above stated: “[t]he power of making treaties does not involve a right of dismembering the Union.”

The Founders intended the treaty power, for the most part, to pertain to war, peace and commerce with foreign nations. Since the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not within that sphere of power or the general powers delegated to the federal government, it cannot be constitutionally abrogated through a treaty.