Quote Originally Posted by Byte Stryke View Post
I think what they are saying is that regardless of the sovereignty of any state or constitutional requirement that treaties and conventions shall be imposed.

So essentially they are saying that if the U.N. ratified a treaty to remove small arms from the populous any and all governments and States "should be required for them to go into effect."

So yeah I think that IS what they are saying
You're citing Fox, though... the actual document (which Fox links to) says

USHRN indicated that while the
Constitution incorporates ratified international treaties, treaties are non-self-executing. The US issued a declaration that the federal government will only implement the treaties to the extent that it “exercises jurisdiction” over the treaty provision, raising federalism as a
barrier to implementation.
The US Federal government (and every other government) does not permit the UN to pass laws for it. This is spin on the truth to make it appear to be something it just isn't. No nation is going to permit that, not even the commiest of pinko bastards is down for getting on the one world nation train.

The argument I'm hearing generally is, the UN is OK when it's a coalition of ass-kicking, and it sucks when it's a bunch of worthless blue-hats raping entire villages in Africa. I can understand that. Just remember it has it's uses in addition to it's costs, and on the whole has been vastly beneficial to the US for decades.

TL;DR If Kruchev beating his shoe on the podium helped prevent the cold war at all, it's worth it.

H.