The Bricker Amendment -- Time to Revive?

My comments on this news:

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution includes the language, "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."

That sounds as though Treaties over-ride the Constitution. If so, Treaties are of paramount importance and theoretically could, IMO, over-ride sovereignty.  Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights guarantees rights to the People and the States [Amendments IX and X], and Amendments are intended to over-ride the Constitution. 

Thus, further discussion seems in order.  An excellent start is below, Justin Raimondo's history of the 1950s effort to ratify the Bricker Amendment.

Treaties cannot be made solely with the signature of the Executive, eg. President Obama.  They require consent from the Senate.  But is consent given by a positive vote of 2/3 of all Senators?  Or a 2/3 vote of Senators present at a given time?

These questions should be aired because it seems possible that Obama may forget that he is President of the in his rush to run for president of the World.

V.