It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill prohibits any president from leaving NATO without Senate consent

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
The executive branch does possess sole power of treaty.... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


Okay. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

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...

Source

Obviously, the president does not have sole power of treaty.




posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
The executive branch does possess sole power of treaty.


They do not, the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate. He cannot unilaterally enact a treaty.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   
By extension the Senate can't act unilaterally.

As it stands 8 Senators fall woefully short on 2/3rds.

Making the president stay in a marriage he doesn't want doesn't sound like advice and constent.

Sounds like dictatorial behavior to me.
edit on 16-12-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: Boadicea

I didn't mean unilateral treaty powers, of course the president cannot enact them on his own, however the president DOES have the executive power to disable any treaty at any time. Hence the sole power of treaty.

ETA - In simpler terms, POTUS has sole power of any existing treaties, the treaty must first exist for the executive to have power over it.
edit on 16-12-2019 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
By extension the Senate can't act unilaterally.


Of course not. But the Senate is not acting so much as reacting to a proposed act by the president.


As it stands 8 Senators fall woefully short on 2/3rds.


Okay.


Making the president stay in a marriage he doesn't want doesn't sound like advice and constent.


Technically, it's not for the president, but for the people. Trump wasn't elected to serve all things "Trump." Trump was elected to serve the best interests of the nation.

And yes, "consent" by definition does require a 2/3 vote of approval from the Senate. That's exactly what "consent" or the lack thereof sounds like.


Sounds like dictatorial behavior to me.


Except it's not. Nothing is written in stone. For one thing, there is nothing stopping the president from continuing to try to change the hearts and minds of the members of the Senate. For another thing, the members of the Senate as a whole changes every two years, so too will their votes. If the people want the change, then they will vote in those people who will enact the change they want.

Nothing dictatorial about it.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Actually it is written in stone.

Sort of.

Goldwater V Carter.

Where Carter unilaterally nulified a defense treaty.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
...the president DOES have the executive power to disable any treaty at any time. Hence the sole power of treaty.


Okay. But to the best of my knowledge, revoking treaties is not addressed at all in the Constitution; so are you attributing the president's sole power due to the absence of any codified legal authority to the contrary? Are you thinking of a specific precedence? A specific court ruling?

I believe there is precedence for president's not enforcing treaties, or parts thereof, at their discretion as executor of the laws. I'm just not aware of any precedent for a president revoking treaties. (I do still need to look up the one Augie posted though...)



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: YouSir

Like Metallicus said, I could be sold on either side.

On one hand I don't want executive power effectively neutered, because then we can't make voting decisions to really shift the direction of our government when we need to.

On the other, we've seen many (almost all) run on a platform, and have a vastly different one once elected. I do worry sometimes that the wrong one could undo very important things.

Ironically I think NATO is pretty antiquated for today's global political environment. I wouldn't have much quarrel with our departure as we pay the most for it. But I don't think my opinion on it, or one presidents should be able to unravel something that many would be against.
edit on 16-12-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Then GW pulled out of the ABM treaty.

It's not like there isn't precedent.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




Ironically I think NATO is pretty antiquated for today's global political environment.


Antiquated doesn't even begin to describe it.

In No way could the US and NATO ever stand up to a Sino Russian alliance.

Russia,China are besties now.

They got the numbers.

They have the logistics.

They have an industrial base using slave labor.

We never want a conflict with either.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

It is, the potus has sole power of treaties. We pulled out of the INF treaty this year, Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty in his time.

Yes, the potus has sole power of treaty, existing treaties that is. Potus does NOT have the power to enact new treaties. All new treaties must go through congress and be ratified, then signed into law.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
I didn't mean unilateral treaty powers, of course the president cannot enact them on his own, however the president DOES have the executive power to disable any treaty at any time. Hence the sole power of treaty.


The President does not have that power, they still need the Senate to agree.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
We pulled out of the INF treaty this year, Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty in his time.


Both of those had specific language permitting that action.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
I didn't mean unilateral treaty powers, of course the president cannot enact them on his own, however the president DOES have the executive power to disable any treaty at any time. Hence the sole power of treaty.


The President does not have that power, they still need the Senate to agree.


No, the POTUS does not need approval from congress to dissolve a treaty, THAT is the sole power of treaty I have been speaking of.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
No, the POTUS does not need approval from congress to dissolve a treaty, THAT is the sole power of treaty I have been speaking of.


Yes, the President does. A treaty becomes 'the supreme law of the land', the President cannot disolve laws unilaterally.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
We pulled out of the INF treaty this year, Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty in his time.


Both of those had specific language permitting that action.

Can you cite me the vote on both of those actions?

Oh wait...there wasn't one, because that is SOLE POWER OF TREATY



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
No, the POTUS does not need approval from congress to dissolve a treaty, THAT is the sole power of treaty I have been speaking of.


Yes, the President does. A treaty becomes 'the supreme law of the land', the President cannot disolve laws unilaterally.

Treaty's are not laws



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Can you cite me the vote on both of those actions?

Oh wait...there wasn't one, because that is SOLE POWER OF TREATY


You have a reading comprehension issue? I just said both of those had clauses permitting either party to pull out for non-compliance or within a specified time frame with due notification which is what occurred. The Senate agreed to that language which made it possible, if it was not there it could not occur. The Supreme Court issued a statement on the matter in the 1970's.




edit on 16-12-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In the 70's when Carter pulled out of the defense treaty, the scotus refused to hear it due to the argument being of political nature. Any further challenge of a POTUS terminating a treaty will likely be seen the same, hence why there was no upheaval over exiting the ABM and INF treaties.

POTUS holds full power over existing treaties.

I'm not saying dissolving NATO would be a good thing, it absolutely wouldn't. However it is within the power of the current POTUS to do that.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join