About Those UN Treaties

Received via email in response to yesterday's GRE column:

David,

RE: A likely UN gun treaty, isn't this true regarding implementation and enforcement?

"It's good to remember that:
1. Any treaty must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate before the Presidentere's signature becomes effective.
2. Treaties (especially UN treaties) are not self-enforcing. They do not become law within a nation. To be enforced within the US a statute would have to be passed.
3. Treaties do not alter the Constitution. Both the House and the Senate would have to pass a bill for a statute which enforces the treaty to become law. 
4. Because the treaty would not alter the Constitution, any statute passed for the purpose of enforcing it must comply with the Constitution and the Amendments to the Constitution."

There's a thread on Obama's gun control putsch here: http://www.theakforum.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187345&start=50 

Sure, if our "leaders" are inclined to observe the Constitution. Since when? They have been doing what they want all along and feel nothing but emboldened now, and the media will be backing them up every step of the way.

See the link I have at the end of my column about "Researchers." I put those there for a reason.

And bear in mind I specifically made a point to write: "But at this point, the likelihood of the treaty's passage is not the story" and then went on to explain what is.

My column isn't so much about the ATT as it is about a storm heading our way due to a "more flexible" willingness to exercise power by an arrogant ruler bent on revenge and now feeling unrestrained.

It's wonderful to see forums discussing this.  Just be careful to sort the hip shot opinions from the painstaking research.