Subject: Re: <i>But I don't think the Dems have the
Held hostage? No. But we are still constrained by them, in the sense that we cannot violate them without consequences.

Then indulge me in a hypothetical. Let's say in a fit of pique the voters come November vote every single Republican out of national office. Not only does Joe Biden win another term, but the dems have 400 seats in the House of Representatives. And not just anybody in those seats, either: I'm talking 400 Pramila Jayapal (who is my Representative, by the way) clones.

Over in the Senate, a wave of retirements means that the democrats are able to put 85 Elizabeth Warren clones into the upper chamber.

Now to our exercise. Suppose a similar wave happens in every single european country and the World Economic Forum suddenly becomes a de facto seat of government: treaties are brokered by the attendees and sent back to each nation to sign. The US, with its newly seated government, is a willing participant.

Let's say the first thing to pass is a new international treaty that bans certain criticisms of government policy, requires press agencies to be certified Pure by an international council of fact-checkers, puts penalties in place for citizens who express thoughts contrary to the messaging approved by the international council of fact-checkers, and requires appeals to made directly the international body. The measure passes in the Congress 400-20 and in the Senate 85-11. Joe Biden enthusiastically approves the treaty.

Now to our question. Are US citizens bound by this treaty?

No one can stop us from breaking international law, but the consequences to U.S. interests are much, much higher when we do things that violate our treaty obligations than when we do things that we've never promised not to do.

When have we ever not promised to defend our borders and who exactly in the international community is going to have an issue with that?