Dick: Do you know how many senators it actually takes to approve a treaty?
Didn't think so. Try TWO (2). That is all. One (1) to preside over the senate and one (1) to vote yes. That one (1) vote YES is two-thirds (2/3) of the senators present (1) and voting (again 1). This was a grave mistake the founding fathers made when they did not make the vote a required two-thirds (2/3) of the senate. On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, 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_America#Article_I>: > > > 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-senate-on-treaty-ratifications/>, > and so they are thinking of "temporarily > bypassing"<http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negotiators-under-the-gun-might-temporarily-bypass-senate-ratification-for-treaty.html>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/~jimxc/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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
