There is a mechanism whereby the President can make this happen (a treaty) unilaterally and have force of law, no congress required.
“There is a mechanism whereby the President can make this happen (a treaty) unilaterally and have force of law, no congress required.”
Would that be the Treaty Czar?
Treaties cannot violate the Constitution, even if ratified by whatever means. So long as we have the 5 justices that held for Heller, this is non-sense.
If the Democrats tried something like this, they'd be out of power for a generation. There's a reason that Obama has been in office for 1.5 years and not a single gun-control measure has come to the ANY committee for a vote. There is no appetite for gun control in the US, and the Dems know it.
Nope, no mechanism for the president alone. That is often mistakenly said. The reality is that under “international law” all that is needed is his signature. If he signs it,, other nations consider it legal. Other nations do not consider ratification to be needed.
But that does not override the requirement that it be ratified by the senate, before it is condidered the law of the land here in the USA.
The President can sign a Treaty but it has to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate to become effective and then becomes equal to highest law — not superior. Supreme Court can also rule on its application and what it takes precedent over.
Currently we are seeing administrative Executive Agreements outnumbering treaties at a pace of 20 to 1. These are less binding and can be abrogated by the next administraion.
So spell it out with source and attribution.
Check your Constitution, The Senate must ratify all treaties.
There is a mechanism whereby the President can make this happen (a treaty) unilaterally and have force of law, no congress required.
###
Wrong. 2/3 of the Senators present have to vote to ratify a treaty.
100% incorrect.
No treaty can change the contents of the United States Constitution.