[lentulusgracchus]

I suggest you do a little searching on treaty law, its force in the U.S., and consequences of presidential signature of a treaty, when the Senate defers consideration and does not act either to ratify or to reject it.

The topic's been discussed on FR, but since the search engine only looks at thread titles and key words, I'm not sure where to look, or how. I've tried it a few times and been not too satisfied with the results, or that I knew what to do.

[Loyal Sedition]

I expect that you are correct that we currently have some alleged “law” by fiat.
But that does not make the alleged law constitutional, legal, or enforceable.

Sure the Gov. Org. may attempt to quash opposition to it’s illicit mandates, they print the money and will expend unlimited resources, up to and including deadly force.

None of that makes them right.

I am not an expert in treaty law, but I am sure there ARE relevant laws, which must include limits on the time available for ratification and what may be done in the interim.

Maybe one of the many lawyers here will contribute a clue as to where to begin a meaningful unbiased search?

I strongly suspect that a lot of this treaty abuse continues only because no one dares fight it.

[neverdem]

Obama is posturing for gun grabber donations. If he signs the treaty, too many rats in the Senate will reject it a la the Kyoto Treaty. Harry Reid might not bring it to a vote. The next majority leader of the Senate will bring it to a vote to reject it like Kyoto.

Poll: GOP gains big with white voters