[A CA Guy]

Clinton may have signed on, but it had to pass something like 75% in the House or Senate (I can’t remember, but some super majority) for it to be a treaty.
Only a treaty is supposed to be in stone.

[DoughtyOne]

The other two posts didn’t have much for me to respond to. I appreciate the comments.

This post did. You mentioned the 75% necessary to vote in order to ratify what Clinton did. It doesn’t work that way.

We were playing by U.N. rules. The U.N. only required the signature of a national leader to bring the I.C.C. into being. It was ratified in this manner.

If you wish to say the U.S. wouldn’t be bound by the I.C.C., it’s a pyrric victory. You see, the U.S. would be loathe to make and affront to the court. We have already had litigation before this court if I remember accurately.

We talk a big game when it comes to international agencies, but we always tow the line.

There is an I.C.C. today. We are subject to it’s rulings even if our Congress did not ratify it, because we accept what the WTO, the ICC and the UN tell us. Basicly, we’re had.

If you can think of examples to disprove this, by all means provide them.