The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Rebel on July 08, 2009, 08:47:01 PM
-
Article two, section two, clause two:
The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
He signed a treaty with Russia today. ...alone. He's acting like a damn dictator. Can you guys and gals contact your senators and congressmen before he gives away Alaska? This guy is the most constitutionally-ignorant person to ever hold office.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_12761508
-
The president can sign all the treaties that he wants, but they are not binding until ratified by the senate.
-
I don't think that's correct according to the US Constitution.
-
I don't think that's correct according to the US Constitution.
Our esteemed colleague thundley is correct, Rebel.
A president can sign any treaty he wishes to ink, but it has no effect until ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Woodrow Wilson in 1919 for example signed the Treaty of Versailles.
-
Our esteemed colleague thundley is correct, Rebel.
A president can sign any treaty he wishes to ink, but it has no effect until ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Woodrow Wilson in 1919 for example signed the Treaty of Versailles.
Just because Woodrow Wilson did it doesn't mean it's legal. Did Obama get the consent of 2/3rds of the Senate? Did he get advice? I'm talking "Constitutionally". Not what's occurred in the past. "Well, this guy did it" is not an excuse in my book.
-
Just because Woodrow Wilson did it doesn't mean it's legal. Did Obama get the consent of 2/3rds of the Senate? Did he get advice? I'm talking "Constitutionally". Not what's occurred in the past. "Well, this guy did it" is not an excuse in my book.
No, no, sir.
Even though Wilson signed the Treaty of Versailles, it meant nothing, because the U.S. Senate didn't ratify it.
I vaguely recall Nixon and Carter signed some, but they came to naught because the treaties were never brought to the U.S. Senate.
It's a symbolic act, nothing more. Pa Kettle from the White House, in signing something with the Russians, is merely promising to try to get the U.S. Senate to pass it at some future time.
-
I did some more reading on the matter. The Secretary of State or even a designee for them can negotiate a treaty. For that matter the president can appoint anyone they want to to do the negotiations. However, no treaty is valid without the Presidents signature, and a 2/3 vote of the senate.
On a side note, the US constitution takes priority over any treaty. I still wonder about the legitimacy of the Child Protection Treaty that the UN wants everyone to sign.
-
Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty and the Senate rejected it. So the big dummie in the W.H. can sign what he wants but it does not mean squat unless Congress approves it.
-
Uh, they HAVE a 2/3 majority with the clown that stole Mich. Probly just a formality.
-
I vaguely recall Nixon and Carter signed some, but they came to naught because the treaties were never brought to the U.S. Senate.
I believe you're talking about the SALT II treaty. However if I recall correctly, it just established the precident for what Lord Ø is planning to do here. The Senate never ratified SALT II, however Carter cancelled Strategic Weapons projects - the B-1, and (if I remember right) the Peacekeeper (MX) project come to mind - just as if the SALT II limitations HAD been ratified.
-
Uh, they HAVE a 2/3 majority with the clown that stole Mich. Probly just a formality.
Nope. They have 60%, not 67%, even with the RINO moonbats Snowe and Collins-Smith defecting, they still don't have 2/3.
-
Nope. They have 60%, not 67%, even with the RINO moonbats Snowe and Collins-Smith defecting, they still don't have 2/3.
D6 is right, of course, and I think AllosaursRus means Al Franken, the guy who bought his Senate seat in Minnesota.