I believe you're wrong on this, travis. It takes a 2/3 consensus of the Senate.
On Jul 8, 12:22 am, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > 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_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/~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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
