Claes Persson wrote:
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:28 AM
>   Subject: Re: {W&P} VB: [actionnow] Digest Number 831
>   In a message dated 5/12/02 5:18:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>     From: "Paul Tifford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>     > 
>     > Passage of any anti-ICC legislation at this point would be
>     > unnecessary and provocative, rubbing salt in the wounds of
>     > our allies, who already are frustrated by the Bush
>     > unsigning. Such unprecedented and reactionary decisions by
>     > US leadership undermine the essential alliances forged in
>     > the war against terrorism and anger voters who want to
>     > remain engaged in the international community.
>     > 
>     > This is the first time a treaty has been "unsigned" and by
>     > so the U.S. is turning its back to its closest allies and
>     > friends.  This creates a precedent that is contrary to U.S.
>     > national interests and will undermine the credibility of the
>     > signature of future United States presidents.
>   =====
>   Ahem! ... This Tifford must be living on another planet! Blaming 
>   everything on President Bush and never once mentioning the fact that the 
>   majority of the US Congress, both Republicans AND Democrats, are against 
>   this treaty and have been from the start. 
>   Lawana
>   Do you really mean that President Bush has not the final resposibiliy 
>   for this and that asking for a change of that stand is to be directed to 
>   someone else? Who? A clerk in some distant departement?
>   Claes
>   ( :8-)


The Supreme Law of the USA is the Constitution of the United States. It 
lays out the exact responsibility for treaty ratification. The 
Constitution gives final ratification power to the US Senate. Each of 
the 50 states elects two senators in completely democratic elections. 
Senators are beholden to the people and serve the people in a very 
direct way. 

President Clnton, though he supported the ICC, chose not to submit it to 
the Senate for a vote because the Senate had earlier indicated in a 
non-binding vote that it would not ratify it without substantial 

Some senators, mostly Democrats, favored an ICC but not in the exact 
form it has.

President Bush opposes the ICC and has also chosen not to submit it to 
the Senate for a vote. There's no chance it would pass in its present 
form, given the earlier expression of Senate opposition that's on 

Al Winslow

Check out for other lists to join.


This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to