> But he has already said he is going to short-cut the Senate and just > sign and implement the treaty. slight difference there. And that was the comparison I was making to Bush - not that he violated the Constitution when it came to treaties, but that he did so when it came to the 4th amendment's requirement that a judge okay the millions of Americans whose right to privacy he violated. And Bush never openly tried to modify legislation, he just broke the lawsecretly. What was his reaction upon getting caught. He got angry at the reporters who busted him! What an ass. So I didn't like that and I don't like what the article says the Obama camp is trying either. Obviously, since I don't like what Obama is doing BUT I don't blindly defend everything ever done by Bush and the GOP like a good little sheeple, dick will call me "liberal". Too funny.
On Jul 6, 4:51 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > pain 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>- Hide > >> quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
