A Textual Approach to Treaty Non-Self-Execution

[...]this rule is embedded within the same constitutional provision that makes the Constitution and federal statutes the supreme law of the land. [...]all treaties have the same legal character as the Constitution and statutes, or, again put in the negative, no treaties have a different legal character from the Constitution and statutes.12 Thus, any proposition that there is a class of treaties, or a type of treaty provision, that is not part of federal law (or some similar phrase) should be rejected (except, as explained below, when conflicts among the different kinds of supreme law arise).13 Second, under Article VI's text, all treaties are binding on judges-categorically, and to the same extent as statutes and the Constitution, whose obligations are described in parallel language. Again, to state the rule in negative form: no treaties are nonbinding on judges nor entitled to be treated differently by judges than statutes and the Constitution. [...]to the extent there could be any doubt what "supreme Law of the Land" meant, the last clause of this paragraph of Article VI confirms that the phrase means, among other things, that "judges . . . shall be bound thereby.