Really little to worry about at this time. By backing the launch of talks, it makes them look like they're not actively blocking the process as the Bush Administration did. However, by requiring consensus nothing will change, because the UN can't decide ANYTHING unanimously.
This issue should be watched carefully by Americans without a doubt, but I still believe that consensus makes this a dead dog.
........... and then there are the hoops that it would have to go through
Article Six of the Constitution states (emphasis by me):
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and
all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Because treaties, like laws, are made UNDER the authority of the United States and the Constitution which formed it, they cannot supersede the Constitution.
In order for a treaty to be binding, it must be:
- Entered into by the Executive Branch
- Ratified by two-thirds vote in the Senate
If it gets that far and the treaty is still believed by the people to be unconstitutional, then they may petition the courts for a ruling.
For more information, take a look at this page, interesting information:
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html
From this site, a few interesting notes:
For a Senator to violate his sworn oath is perjury, a felony, an impeachable offense.
Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point:
"If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution". Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed:
"a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States. (2)"
2. Thomas Jefferson quoted from his Manual of Parliamentary Practice and Alexander Hamilton from The Federalist Papers cited by Hoar WP. Treaties vs the constitution --- which law is supreme. The New American 1995;11(7):55.
BTW ........ the date was early November!
