Constitution?
What does a “constitutional scholar” need to know about the Constitution?
Clinton says she would, as previously announced, sign ASEAN’s seminal Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, a commitment to peacefully resolve regional disputes that has already been signed by more than a dozen countries outside the 10-nation bloc.
The U.S. signing will be by the executive authority of Obama and does not require congressional ratification, said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the move publicly.
I know I’m not a Harvard educated lawyer, so obviously my thoughts on this should be instantly disregarded, if not outright banned, but doesn’t the US Constitution, that “charter of negative liberties” as he so famously (well, not famously enough) put it, doesn’t the Constitution have something to say about how treaties are to be made
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;
“Does not require congressional ratification” my ass.
Think he can find 66 votes for this?
More importantly, do you think anyone on Capitol Hill or in the MSM will make him try?
They can “sign” all the pieces of paper they want, but until it is debated and approved by the Senate it means nothing.
Uncategorized | Mr. Bingley | 
July 22, 2009 7:22 am
Subscribe
There are three ways to get a treaty to be ratified. One is the method you mention. The other is to introduce a bill into the house and senate that essentially is the treaty and have it take the force of law. This method only requires a majority in Congress. The third way is the method they’re discussing here.
That method is for the President to act with his inherent powers over international affairs. This method is only effective while he is president. That is, until the policy is in place long enough to establish precedent, at which time it could be binding on subsequent administrations. When that occurs is purely a matter of what is politically acceptable, domestically and internationally.
Constitution? What’s that asked the man behind the curtain.
Hey, he won. Now shut up and eat your waffle.
Steve, can you still afford waffles? I’m envious.
I should note that this third method only applies to inherent powers as head of state. That is, he can’t use this method to enact the 1938 Migratory Bird Act that puts criminal sanctions on individuals that violate it.
A treaty that professes a desire peacefully resolve disputes is toothless and virtually meaningless. Courts have interpreted such treaties to be no more than mere puffery and completely unenforceable. It makes for good feelings and intentions but doesn’t mean a thing.