[carguychris]

Never thought of the UN as a legislative body. As for international treaties, they fall under both the need for senate confirmation and judicial review.

+1. Before subscribing to any moonbat theories about UN conspiracies to take away our rights, I suggest looking a little further into the underlying principles of international law, and into the politics of international diplomacy.

1. Besides the need for Senate confirmation and judicial review, any international treaty is only as binding as the countries signing the treaty want it to be. There is no international Globocop overseeing the whole world to make sure all countries meet their treaty obligations. (Some people pretend that the UN is this cop. It's not. Any UN force consists of forces from individual countries.) It's up to the countries signing the treaty to voluntarily enforce it, and when one country abrogates the treaty, the others may retaliate, but their avenues for doing so may be limited. Ask any Native American what happens when the country holding all the cards decides that it's going to ignore a treaty.
2. International politics is very complex, and sometimes involves taking uncomfortable stances on one issue in order to gain favor with countries whose help you need on another issue. (Read: "NATO Troops in Afghanistan")
3. Pretending that you want to help and then inserting a "poison pill" provision into the final treaty language, thereby rendering the whole treaty unpassable or impotent, is a time-honored tradition in international politics. Of course, we all know that US diplomats would never do something like this in full knowledge that the US Senate will overwhelmingly reject it. Nope, never. ("I'm so sorry Mr. Ambassador Sir, but I had no idea that the Senate would do that. It's out of my hands. So sorry.")