On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. In this 4 minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Page 18: Section 38 of the "Share vision for long-term cooperation action plan" contains the text for forming the new government.

Page 40: Section 46 Subsection H of the "Objectives, scope, and guiding principles" contains the text for enforcement and establishment of the rule of law.

There has been considerable debate raised about Monckton's conclusion that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty. His comments appear to be based upon his interpretation of the The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land. Concerns have been raised in the past that a particularly ambitious treaty may supersede the US Constitution. In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, was proposed in response to such fears, but it failed to pass. You can read more about the Bricker Amendment in a 1953 Time Magazine article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art...,9171,806676-1,00.html

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.

I think the most powerdful person in the world, the POTUS, can most certainly convey sovereignty away from the US with too much emphasis and dependence on the toothless organization, the United Nations. The only relevance the UN has is what we willingly GIVE them.   

China and Russia only use the UN to thwart what might be in OUR intrest, and they are somewhat successful because we cede legitimacy to the UN.

It may be noted that, historically, the Supremacy Clause has tipped in the favor of the POTUS in international affairs, especially in waging "undeclared" wars, which is why Ike fought his own party to get the Bricker Amendments quashed.

Truman used the SC in getting our troops involved in a “police action” in Korea as a UN Charter obligation; LBJ cited the South East Asian Treaty (as well as some mysterious bilateral “secret treaty”) obligation in getting troops into Vietnam (even though RVN was not a signatory); W got us into Iraq “enforcing UN proclamations.”

The difference today is that the treaties and accords being bantered about aren’t about military and diplomatic issues, but about economic issues and internal affairs, such as what items can we use in our everyday lives, and how our manufacturers can produce them.  And not only would we have to allow external audits, but some other countries, including our competitors, may be exempt, or simply decide not to comply with the treaty they had signed. 

[Many other countries do not formally recognize treaties as part of the Law of the Land, as we do.]

There are many ways to cede sovreignity. It doesnt have to be formal through treaties etc.
Obama has ceded it more than its ever been done in history. Jimmy Carter of course, if ex presidents ahd power, would give it away in a heartbeat