Skip to main content

View Diary: Dusting off "Inherent Contempt" (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually the president can't act on his own (0+ / 0-)

    From the beginning, however, the formal act of ratification has been performed by the President acting "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

    The President ratifies the treaty, but only upon the authorization of the Senate.

    or if you prefer it

    From the beginning, however, the formal act of ratification has been performed by the President acting "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

    The President ratifies the treaty, but only upon the authorization of the Senate.

    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

    by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:19:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  We are not talking about RATIFICATION (0+ / 0-)

      we are talking about beginning a treaty.  The President can negotiate whatever treaties he likes.  The Senate gets a chance to reject them.

      Furthermore, even if the Senate really really really wants a treaty, but the President does not, there is nothing the Senate can do.  It is the President who decides which treaties to enter and when and whether to submit them to the Senate for ratification.  The President can refuse to submit a treaty for ratification and again, there is nothing the Senate can do.

      Again, see Kyoto & ICC.

      •  Ratification is how a treaty is made (0+ / 0-)

        without it no treaty is made, just a lot of noise, so we are indeed talking about ratification.

        The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2
        describes the presidential role in making treaties

        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;

        That makes clear that the president has no power to make treaties unless by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

        by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:55:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For the love of Pete... (0+ / 0-)

          The treaty making power is obviously shared.  the point is Senate can do nothing without the President.  And vice versa.  Which means that neither has "all the power."

          •  The treaty making power is (0+ / 0-)

            by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

            Thats shared like your dad giving you the keys to the car so you can go out on a date providing you agree to abide by his advice he will give his consent ... but ... if you don't get Pete and yourself home by curfew you aren't likely so see your Dad give his consent to handing over the keys to his car again til long after Pete finds another boyfriend...

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:28:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Once again, Senate has a power of VETO (0+ / 0-)

              over a treaty.  It does not have affirmative treaty-making power.  What's so difficult to understand about that.  Senate can advise all it wants, but if the President refuses to sign a treaty there is nothing for Senate to vote on or consent to.

              •  The Congress shall have the power... (0+ / 0-)

                In this case, the Senate has the power of advise and consent. Nothing happens without its advise and consent. No treaty, nothing. zip, nada...

                Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:24:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's why the Senate has a power of a veto (0+ / 0-)

                  Thatios just what I said.  But ifthe Senate wants a treaty, but the President does not, also nothing happens.

                  •  The Senate does not have a Veto (0+ / 0-)

                    it has the power of advise and consent and does not need a veto as there is nothing to veto if it does not consent.

                    If the Senate wants a treaty and the President doesn't, then the Senate may still get what it wants through legislation or regulation by for example making a law that all imports from China must comply with US labor laws.

                    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                    by rktect on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:28:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Legislation unlike a treaty (0+ / 0-)

                      binds only the US.  It does not bind China.  for instance Congress can pass all the legislation it wants, but in the absence of a treaty there can be no extradition from China.

                      Furthermore, "refusing consent" and "veto" are one and the same.

                      •  To advise and consent is more than to consent (0+ / 0-)

                        if to refuse consent equates to a Veto, what about the part of the phrase that reads ...by and with the advise...?

                        Congress can take away Chinas most favored nation trade status simply by passing the legislation to do so. China may then refuse to trade with the US, call in its debts and bankrupt us.

                        We may then nationalize all their assets in the US and before long extradition from China is the least of our problems.

                        The time consuming investigations and deliberations of Congress that allow them to advise and consent are a big part of the process

                        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                        by rktect on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 12:18:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site