Dude, come on. Now you are straight misleading/telling untruths. Treaties MIGHT not be "self executing" depending on their language/intent. That doesn't mean no

Dude, come on. Now you are straight misleading/telling untruths. Treaties MIGHT not be "self executing" depending on their language/intent. That doesn't mean none are. But what part of: "When the terms of treaty import a contract or suggest that some future legislative act is necessary" Does: "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" fall under? It is self executing. It doesn't need to be expanded upon by an additional act of Congress. Sure a more complex treaty might require a framework of laws flushing out what it mandates/requires or as discussed in your link when Congress needs to authorize funding, but this aint that. Saying "treaties aren’t even self executing—that means they have no effect domestically unless Congress passes a law implementing the treaty." is bullshit. This legal thinking applies only to a SUBSET (but you know this) of treaties that fall under certain tests and doesn't apply here. You are spewing legal bullshit hoping it sticks not responding from a position of good faith. You have fallen down the MAGA hole and now defend the indefensible because you apply your MAGA leaders position first, and work backwards to justification from that.