# United Nations vs US law **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 9, 2017, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-nations-vs-us-law/788511 "2017-06-09T13:28:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2017, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-nations-vs-us-law/788511/21 "2017-06-11T11:50:34Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > But more commonly with issues like these, the “lunatic” as you describe them is someone who is convinced that that any instance of the US recognizing or participating in ANY body of law or policy other than the explicit text of the US Constitution or the Common Law is a foot-in-the-door/camel’s-nose-under-the-tent part of the plot to undermine those two and submit us to an International Order. And how do they imagine international trade is governed, I wonder? Would they argue that within the US, each individual state’s law somehow overrides all the others when they trade with each other, or am I under a misapprehension in thinking that the phrase “interstate commerce” has some special significance in US jurisprudence? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-nations-vs-us-law/788511/22 "2017-06-12T18:26:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Altho that does make the USA safe vs Security Council actions, this is not what the Op is talking about. Not to mention there is also the World Court, etc. The OP contains the example of a treaty affecting gun ownership in the U.S., so my post is directly responsive thereunto. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-nations-vs-us-law/788511/23 "2017-06-12T19:45:39Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Would they argue that within the US, each individual state’s law somehow overrides all the others when they trade with each other, or am I under a misapprehension in thinking that the phrase “interstate commerce” has some special significance in US jurisprudence? Ah, but you see, THAT is handled under the US Constitution, handed down to the Fouding Fathers by Jeezus himself, so it’s OK… mostly. Gotta watch out for them Big Guvmint Activist Judges, y’know… ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-nations-vs-us-law/788511/24 "2017-06-12T20:00:55Z")
> [@](#): > > No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. > [@beowulff](#): > > Is it (Congress or and other branch of the Government) which is free from the restraints of the Constitution, or is it (agreement with a foreign nation)? If you’re only looking at grammar/syntax, I suppose there’s an argument that it’s ambiguous. But this is a sentence in a legal decision entirely about the restraints of the Constitution. Any U.S. Lawyer reading that would know, without needing any reflection, that Congress is not in fact generally free from the restraints of the Constitution, and would therefore immediately understand that it is the power that is being described. An analogous sentence would be “Sam threw the ball to Fred, with a high arc.” We all know immediately, without having to think, that Fred doesn’t have a high arc, but a thrown ball can. So, while the sentence is grammatically ambiguous, one semantics comes into play, it is not, and is not difficult to understand. Context and intended audience matter. > [@JRDelirious](#): > > Right. The sentence would be more understandably written as: > > No agreement with a foreign nation can confer on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. > > No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution, on the Congress or on any other branch of Government. I’m not entirely sure. The first revised version is grammatically less ambiguous, but someone reading it actually has to pay more attention, since they have to keep the whole first part of the sentence suspended in their mind, waiting for the direct object (“can confer\* what\*? Hurry up, tell me!”). Whereas with the original sentence, the entire action is clear, and the reader can absorb that and move on to the qualifications and descriptions. The second revision doesn’t have that problem, and isn’t bad, but does subtly change the emphasis of the sentence, away from Congress and more to the general idea of power. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-nations-vs-us-law/788511/25 "2017-06-12T20:26:46Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The OP contains the example of a treaty affecting gun ownership in the U.S., so my post is directly responsive thereunto. How so? You said that the US can veto UNSC resolutions, which is true. But the UNSC deals with threats to international security, so it seems to me to be a very remote scenario in which the UNSC would ever involve itself in what is almost certainly a purely domestic matter of commercial arms sales within a country. And when I say “very remote,” I mean just that. Treaties have signed up the US (and others) to making progress on complete nuclear disarmament, which we probably could be called out on, but if the UNSC isn’t willing to take up that issue, why would they take up the cause of, say, the importation of Beretta shotguns without proper end user certificates? There’s no way this treaty lands in the UNSC’s lap for any Second Amendment related issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-nations-vs-us-law/788511.md?page=1)