Bill prohibits any president from leaving NATO without Senate consent

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Treaties are never meant to be laws on the homeland, they are agreements between nations, and if any treaty infringed the constitutiion, it would by nature, be null and void.

a reply to: Vector99

And 8 senators know it's within executive power or they wouldn't have introduced a bill to stop it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Boadicea

Goldwater V Carter.

Where Carter unilaterally nulified a defense treaty.

Thank you! That's what I'm looking for...

Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case which was the result of a lawsuit filed by Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenging the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which the United States had signed with the Republic of China, so that relations could instead be established with the People's Republic of China. Goldwater and his co-filers claimed that the President required Senate approval to take such an action, under Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, and that, by not doing so, President Carter had acted beyond the powers of his office.

Funny that the political parties are switched, with a Republican Senator challenging a Democrat Prez. The technicalities are pretty much the same. In the case of Taiwan though, we basically betrayed our promise to the underdog in order to suck up to (and profit from) their oppressor. And with the benefit of hindsight, it has not served us well.

Granting a petition for certiorari but without hearing oral arguments, the court vacated a court of appeals ruling and remanded the case to a federal district court with directions to dismiss the complaint.[1] A majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument. Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist issued two separate concurring opinions on the case. Rehnquist claimed that the issue concerned how foreign affairs were conducted between Congress and the President, and was essentially political, not judicial; therefore, it was not eligible to be heard by the court. Powell, while agreeing that the case did not merit judicial review, believed that the issue itself, the powers of the President to break treaties without congressional approval, would have been arguable had Congress issued a formal opposition through a resolution to the termination of the treaty. (The Senate had drafted such a resolution, but not voted upon it.[2]) This would have turned the case into a constitutional debate between the executive powers granted to the President and the legislative powers granted to Congress. As the case stood, however, it was simply a dispute among unsettled, competing political forces within the legislative and executive branches of government, and hence still political in nature due to the lack of majority or supermajority vote in the Senate speaking officially as a constitutional institution. Today, the case is considered a textbook example of the political question doctrine in U.S. constitutional law.

I find Powell's position (my bolding and underlining) very interesting. I'm not sure if this ruling is simply the Supreme Court's way of refusing to deal with the issue -- kinda like they refuse to deal with the Natural Born Citizen clause -- or if the lack of a formal resolution by the Senate was a way to avoid a formal ruling. Maybe both. Maybe neither, but I'm inclined to fear the worst with all things "Federal."

And I am more inclined now than before to think Senate approval for revoking a treaty is necessary and proper. The president has latitude and discretion in how a treaty is enforced. That's enough power. If the president truly thinks it's in our best interests to revoke a treaty, then the president needs to make that case to the people and the Senate using the power of his bully pulpit.

I find this all rather ironic though. Even as Trump is fighting a trade war with China which is (arguably) a direct result of Carter's unilateral revocation of our treaty with Taiwan in favor of trade with China, Trump does not see the problem with presidents having such unilateral power... Even if Trump absolutely has our nation's best interests at heart in wanting to revoke NATO, he should also see how this power can and will be abused by other presidents.

Source

originally posted by: Vector99
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...

The reason? '...Congress had not issued a formal opposition.'

As for Bush, I addressed that already, he gave the required notice as proscribed in the treaty. He was permitted to do that because the Senate approved the language of that treaty.

originally posted by: Vector99
Treaties are never meant to be laws on the homeland, they are agreements between nations, and if any treaty infringed the constitutiion, it would by nature, be null and void.

None of the in affect treaties violate United States law, therefore they are considered the same as any other law. This is not open for debate.

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm not sure if this ruling is simply the Supreme Court's way of refusing to deal with the issue -

Probably was.

The Scotus doesn't act when it should, and does when it shouldnt.

Names change but the bullsnip is the same.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The reason? '...Congress had not issued a formal opposition.'

It's like I almost said that, oh wait

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Metallicus
I could be convinced either way on this Bill. I don’t want us to have to stay in bad trade deals and climate change BS, but for military things like NATO maybe let Congress have some control. Only Congress can declare war at this point so maybe it is along the same line of logic.

That would be a subverting the power of the executive branch.

Congress has sole power in negotiating/enacting treaties, POTUS has sole power of removal of treaties.

No, congress should NOT have a say in this without proper legislation to override the executive (that takes a lot)

a reply to: neo96

The Scotus doesn't act when it should, and does when it shouldnt.
Names change but the bullsnip is the same.

^^^That's the truth.

No argument whatsoever here

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
Treaties are never meant to be laws on the homeland, they are agreements between nations, and if any treaty infringed the constitutiion, it would by nature, be null and void.

None of the in affect treaties violate United States law, therefore they are considered the same as any other law. This is not open for debate.

we got a bit off-topic on this venue, but what I was trying to portray is any treaty we enter would not be subject to homeland laws.

We couldn't enter a treaty with Canada saying cars are illegal and expect it to be upheld here

originally posted by: Vector99
It's like I almost said that, oh wait

It's not like you said that because you didn't. The Supreme Court telling Congress they need to file a formal opposition is not the same as you saying the need to create more legislation. All they needed to do was take a simple vote and then file their petition to the Court.

originally posted by: Vector99
we got a bit off-topic on this venue, but what I was trying to portray is any treaty we enter would not be subject to homeland laws.

Yes, they are. If they don't violate the Constitution than for all intents they are on par with any law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Not open for debate.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
we got a bit off-topic on this venue, but what I was trying to portray is any treaty we enter would not be subject to homeland laws.

Yes, they are. If they don't violate the Constitution than for all intents they are on par with any law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Not open for debate.

I cant counter that because that hasn't happened yet.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
It's like I almost said that, oh wait

It's not like you said that because you didn't. The Supreme Court telling Congress they need to file a formal opposition is not the same as you saying the need to create more legislation. All they needed to do was take a simple vote and then file their petition to the Court.

If it was so simple, why didn't it happen?

originally posted by: Vector99
I cant counter that because that hasn't happened yet.

Which in turn means that they are the 'supreme law'.

originally posted by: Vector99
If it was so simple, why didn't it happen?

My first guess would be because it was pandering and they really didn't want to push the issue since they most likely wanted open trade with China as that was the policy of the Nixon administration and they supported it then.

a reply to: Vector99

Can you quote or link the part of the constitution or whatever it is that makes you believe this?

You keep saying this but offer no proof.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
I cant counter that because that hasn't happened yet.

Which in turn means that they are the 'supreme law'.

If congress drafts a treaty with another nation which would require changes in our laws, it will indeed require an act of congress and need a signature from the potus.

You cannot change the laws of the nation via treaty. Even if the law is on board with the treaty, it would still take a bill from congress signed by the potus to become law.

originally posted by: Vector99
You cannot change the laws of the nation via treaty.

Yes, you can.

All treaties are the law of the land, but only a self-executing treaty would prevail in a domestic court over a prior, inconsistent act of Congress. A non-self-executing treaty could not supersede a prior inconsistent act of Congress in a U. S. court. A non-self-executing treaty nevertheless would be the supreme law of the land in the sense that--as long as the treaty is consistent with the Bill of Rights--the President could not constitutionally ignore or contravene it. Source

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
You cannot change the laws of the nation via treaty.

Yes, you can.

All treaties are the law of the land, but only a self-executing treaty would prevail in a domestic court over a prior, inconsistent act of Congress. A non-self-executing treaty could not supersede a prior inconsistent act of Congress in a U. S. court. A non-self-executing treaty nevertheless would be the supreme law of the land in the sense that--as long as the treaty is consistent with the Bill of Rights--the President could not constitutionally ignore or contravene it. Source

Again, this has never happened, and would likely go to the SCOTUS. If a law by treaty were to infringe on a law under US code, I'm confident in saying that the treaty law would be overruled.

Lets use an easy one for example, the 2A.

If we were to sign a treaty with France saying we will outlaw all guns, do you think the treaty would apply domestically? Technically it would, however our own laws would supersede the treaty.

originally posted by: Vector99
Again, this has never happened...

Sure it has, plenty of times. United States tax treaties with other nations has changed our tax laws for citizens from when they were initially enacted.