you didn't read the story
it specifically discusses their wish to bypass congress

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:16 PM, pain <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> This is how treaties are made. Just because a leader signs a treaty
> doesn't mean it's been implmented. It's up to the legislative body to
> retify a treaty. I don't really see the problem. How do you suppose
> the Congress approves a treaty before it's been negotiated?
>
> On 6 Juli, 18:14, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Sounds right to me.  I don't see where the president can just make the
> > treaty without the consent of the US Senate.  If I remember right it
> > takes both of them to approve the treaties.  It is not really a done
> > deal if the president signs it unless the senate also approves it.
> > Guess they forgot that one.  Of course they also tried to forget that
> > when it came to Kyoto for a while as the Dems tried to force the US to
> > implement a treaty that the Senate never ratified.  Looks like another
> > one coming along.
> >
> > *The Constitution Imposes Severe Limits On A President's Treaty-Making
> > Powers:  * Here's the relevant section
> > <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am..
> .>:
> >
> >     He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
> >     Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
> >     present concur;
> >
> > The Obama administration is finding that limitation inconvenient
> > <http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat..
> .>,
> > and so they are thinking of "temporarily bypassing"
> > <http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot..
> .>
> > the Senate.   Not on any important matter, just a little agreement with
> > the Russians on limiting nuclear arms.
> >
> > I looked carefully through the Constitution, and could not find any
> > provision that allows a president to bypass, temporarily or otherwise,
> > that limit on his treaty-making powers.
> >
> > Senator Byrd --- among others --- isn't going to like this one little
> bit.
> > - 8:08 AM, 6 July 2009   [link]
> > <http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to