They aren't obliged to support all comers. Don't like it? Do what they do.

Everywhere socialism has been tried, it has been a failure? Really? Germany seems to be doing quite well, thank you very much. China's command economy is wiping up the floor with us, as well. By that metric, American capitalism is a failure. because unhealthy concentrations of wealth are inevitable. Speaking of Kool-Aid, yours was quite obviously supplied by Timothy Leary.

Luny Tune: "So it is time for the Church to stand up, reinstitute virtue, and speak out against corrupt politicians." The Church doesn't know what virtue is any more.

That is my point, as well. I may despise what you do or say, but I will defend to the death your right to do and say them, provided they are consistent with law.

In short, you do need the public commons. Let's stop plowing the public roads, and see how well you'll get by without it.

As if the moron with the water-wings like annfan has standing to judge.

It is one of those oddities necessitated by the Constitution. Every treaty we sign involves a Reid v. Covert exception, declaring that to the extent that a treaty is inconsistent with the Constitution, the latter takes precedence. This is required when you think about it, as the government has no power not expressly entrusted to it, as Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78. As it is in our presumptive national interest to conform with these global treaties, conforming legislation is authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Ransom doesn't like me calling him out for his ignorance, intellectual inconsistency, and incompetence.

This is the process we have developed, and the courts have bought off on it. Rather by definition, the President and Senate can enact any treaty on any subject they damn well please, as long as it is not prohibited by the Bill of Rights. Treaties are subject to more internal controls: you have to get another sovereign to agree to it, and you need both 2/3 ratification and Presidential approval. It is entirely fair to say that the Framers did not anticipate the 20th century innovation known as the international covenant, governing the relationship between the citizen and his sovereign. But the Constitution plainly allows this, so you can't say that there isn't a way to get there.

IIRC, his father (acting as next friend) was expressly prevented from doing precisely that.