The Treaty Paradox

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since the ratification of a treaty requires the assent of one branch of Congress, I would argue that a treaty that contravenes Article I Section 9 cannot be constitutionally ratified in the first place.

The reasons for restricting the treaty ratification to the Senate, is that treaties are agreements between States, and the Senate represents the States of the United States thus making it the proper body to make agreements with States that are not part of the United States.  The President's treaty role is executive in that he conducts the negotiations on behalf of the Senate.

Even if one accept the view that a treaty can contravene Article I Section 9, it could only do so in the context of an agreement within the scope of a treaty.  Thus for example, the Senate might be able to ratify a treaty with the Kingdom of Kongo, that no national of that Kingdom could not be imported as property, but it could not make an agreement that would bar importation of all persons as property from everywhere unless it made a treaty with every single sovereign realm.