the very fact that such treaties must pass through muster through both the executive and legislative branch of our government ...
All our laws, including the unConstitutional ones go through nearly the same process, excepting only one house of Congress is needed (Senate) for a treaty.
I am far from a law scholar, but I think that because there is a specific process for treaties in the Constitution, that some might argue that a properly ratified treaty can contain and enforce items that would be un-Constitutional as domestic law. And that is what worries us, a lot.
It is splitting hairs (but that's what lawyers love to do) but a Treaty is not a law. It is an agreement that carries the force of law, but not a law, because it does not go through the same process in our govt.
We all know that we have a legal recourse to overturn un-Constitutional laws, but do we have that ability for an un-Constituional treaty?
I just don't know. Your thoughts?
And, yes, the over the top, sky is falling approach of the NRA does get wearying, but if it gets even one more person off their butt and actively supporting the cause, isn't it worth it?