CDZ Can the President “Unsign” a Treaty? A Constitutional Inquiry

[Picaro]

This came up in another thread, and seemed like a decent topic. I say he does, but I'm not a SC Justice, and apparently the SC has avoided the issue.

This essay takes the left wing view, and I am not endorsing it's general views, but it does touch on the main points:

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/c...tpsredir=1&article=1227&context=law_lawreview

I would say the President needs a lot of room when handling foreign policy, and doesn't need to get bogged down in endless sniveling contests with the Senate or Congress when it comes to being able to react quickly to existential policy issues. this is especially true with an entire Party and the establishment of the other main Party are anti-American and selling out the country to the highest foreign bidders.

 

[TNHarley]

IMO, if it has to be agreed upon by 2/3rds of the Senate to become law, he should get 2/3rds of the senate top undo it. In the least have enough votes to pass new legislation.
BUT my opinion doesnt mean shit as the Constitution doesnt forbid it.
I dont disagree with the SC refusing to judge it.

 

[westwall]

This came up in another thread, and seemed like a decent topic. I say he does, but I'm not a SC Justice, and apparently the SC has avoided the issue.

This essay takes the left wing view, and I am not endorsing it's general views, but it does touch on the main points:

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/c...tpsredir=1&article=1227&context=law_lawreview

I would say the President needs a lot of room when handling foreign policy, and doesn't need to get bogged down in endless sniveling contests with the Senate or Congress when it comes to being able to react quickly to existential policy issues. this is especially true with an entire Party and the establishment of the other main Party are anti-American and selling out the country to the highest foreign bidders.

Nope. A Treaty is a Nation level agreement. Those MUST go through Congress and the Senate. That's why obummer avoided treaties at all cost, and why trump has been able to dismantle obummers illegal deals so quickly.

 

[jwoodie]

The authority for President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally annul a treaty, in this case the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, was the topic of the Supreme Court case Goldwater v. Carter in which the court declined to rule on the legality of this action, given the political nature rather than judicial nature of the case, thereby allowing it to proceed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This came up in another thread, and seemed like a decent topic. I say he does, but I'm not a SC Justice, and apparently the SC has avoided the issue.

This essay takes the left wing view, and I am not endorsing it's general views, but it does touch on the main points:

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/c...tpsredir=1&article=1227&context=law_lawreview

I would say the President needs a lot of room when handling foreign policy, and doesn't need to get bogged down in endless sniveling contests with the Senate or Congress when it comes to being able to react quickly to existential policy issues. this is especially true with an entire Party and the establishment of the other main Party are anti-American and selling out the country to the highest foreign bidders.

Nope. A Treaty is a Nation level agreement. Those MUST go through Congress and the Senate. That's why obummer avoided treaties at all cost, and why trump has been able to dismantle obummers illegal deals so quickly.

Treaties do NOT go through the House.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can't "unsign" a treaty.

I think a Pres can "unsign" an Agreement. 43 was doing that in 2002 on getting the US out of international war crimes treaties in order to protect American troops from international jurisdiction if he went to war in Iraq.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Until the Senate APPROVES an agreement it is NOT a binding Treaty.

 

[percysunshine]

This came up in another thread, and seemed like a decent topic. I say he does, but I'm not a SC Justice, and apparently the SC has avoided the issue.

This essay takes the left wing view, and I am not endorsing it's general views, but it does touch on the main points:

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/c...tpsredir=1&article=1227&context=law_lawreview

I would say the President needs a lot of room when handling foreign policy, and doesn't need to get bogged down in endless sniveling contests with the Senate or Congress when it comes to being able to react quickly to existential policy issues. this is especially true with an entire Party and the establishment of the other main Party are anti-American and selling out the country to the highest foreign bidders.

Compacts and executive agreements:

Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw

Treaties:

Annotation 10 - Article II - FindLaw



So, the answer is ... that the Executive branch can undo things previous Executives have done, but they need the Legislative branch to undo things previous Legislatures have done.

 

[Picaro]

This came up in another thread, and seemed like a decent topic. I say he does, but I'm not a SC Justice, and apparently the SC has avoided the issue.

This essay takes the left wing view, and I am not endorsing it's general views, but it does touch on the main points:

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/c...tpsredir=1&article=1227&context=law_lawreview

I would say the President needs a lot of room when handling foreign policy, and doesn't need to get bogged down in endless sniveling contests with the Senate or Congress when it comes to being able to react quickly to existential policy issues. this is especially true with an entire Party and the establishment of the other main Party are anti-American and selling out the country to the highest foreign bidders.

Nope. A Treaty is a Nation level agreement. Those MUST go through Congress and the Senate. That's why obummer avoided treaties at all cost, and why trump has been able to dismantle obummers illegal deals so quickly.

Treaties do NOT go through the House.

But if it is a Treaty that involves aid, the House will have to approve the spending, as is the case with NATO and other stuff revolving around the National Defense Authorization Act, to name one, so they have some say in how treaties are implemented effectively; after the fact, true enough, so they do have some say on them.

 

[Picaro]

Until the Senate APPROVES an agreement it is NOT a binding Treaty.

But the Senate is only for advice and consent; it doesn't negotiate them or implement them. There is nothing in the division of powers that states the President needs their permission to break one. Foreign policy is the purview of the Presidency, not the Legislature.

 

[Picaro]

IMO, if it has to be agreed upon by 2/3rds of the Senate to become law, he should get 2/3rds of the senate top undo it. In the least have enough votes to pass new legislation.
BUT my opinion doesnt mean shit as the Constitution doesnt forbid it.
I dont disagree with the SC refusing to judge it.

Yes. The SC is so politicized now I consider it worthless, and it is Congress that is to blame for that; they like to shove off their responsibilities on the Court to avoid addressing issues that are unpopular. It makes their work days a lot shorter and they can spend more time soliciting bribes and partying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A Treaty approved by the Senate becomes part of federal law.

The president cannot undo federal law under treaty without the Senate undoing its previous action.

 

[Picaro]

A Treaty approved by the Senate becomes part of federal law.

The president cannot undo federal law under treaty without the Senate undoing its previous action.

No such restrictions on the President's powers to conduct foreign policy exist in the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, Picaro, but the Supremacy Clause determines the issue.

"The strongest argument for those asserting that Congress must be involved in terminating treaties is based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article VI, which states that treaties are "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is silent on how federal statutes can be terminated, and they too are the law of the land. No one would suggest the President could unilaterally revoke a federal statute. Nor should he be able to unilaterally terminate a treaty -- another part of the law of the land -- without the authority of the Congress.

A more limited, but related argument is that since the President can only make a treaty with the advice and consent of the Senate, he must procure the same advice and consent to end a treaty.

Those claiming that the president has unilateral power to terminate brush aside the Supremacy Clause. They say it is addressed to the courts alone, and that its purpose was to make sure treaties were superior to state laws. And they dismiss treating treaties as the equivalent to federal statutes as little more than sophistry. Treaties are international agreements, not domestic laws, they point out, and few treaties have any domestic implications. Equating the two simply because they are both forms of federal law and thus supreme over state law, they argue, is mere sophistry."

CNN.com - FindLaw Forum: The president, Congress and treaties - September 3, 2001

 

[Picaro]

Thank you, Picaro, but the Supremacy Clause determines the issue.

"The strongest argument for those asserting that Congress must be involved in terminating treaties is based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article VI, which states that treaties are "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is silent on how federal statutes can be terminated, and they too are the law of the land. No one would suggest the President could unilaterally revoke a federal statute. Nor should he be able to unilaterally terminate a treaty -- another part of the law of the land -- without the authority of the Congress.

A more limited, but related argument is that since the President can only make a treaty with the advice and consent of the Senate, he must procure the same advice and consent to end a treaty.

Those claiming that the president has unilateral power to terminate brush aside the Supremacy Clause. They say it is addressed to the courts alone, and that its purpose was to make sure treaties were superior to state laws. And they dismiss treating treaties as the equivalent to federal statutes as little more than sophistry. Treaties are international agreements, not domestic laws, they point out, and few treaties have any domestic implications. Equating the two simply because they are both forms of federal law and thus supreme over state law, they argue, is mere sophistry."

CNN.com - FindLaw Forum: The president, Congress and treaties - September 3, 2001

That's an opinion, not a Constitutional limit on the Presidency. Presidents 'brush aside' the Supremacy Clause all the time; it has no bearing on their powers to implement foreign policy. The Senate can't order the President to include or exclude anything from a treaty, nor can they order him to enforce any agreement that in his opinion is not in the best interest of the country. The reason the SC avoids addressing the issue is because they would have to invent a power to restrict the Presidency in such a manner, i.e. pull some sort of fictional fantasy out of their asses.

And, you don't understand what the Supremacy Clause is for, obviously.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thank you, Picaro, but the Supremacy Clause determines the issue.

"The strongest argument for those asserting that Congress must be involved in terminating treaties is based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article VI, which states that treaties are "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is silent on how federal statutes can be terminated, and they too are the law of the land. No one would suggest the President could unilaterally revoke a federal statute. Nor should he be able to unilaterally terminate a treaty -- another part of the law of the land -- without the authority of the Congress.

A more limited, but related argument is that since the President can only make a treaty with the advice and consent of the Senate, he must procure the same advice and consent to end a treaty.

Those claiming that the president has unilateral power to terminate brush aside the Supremacy Clause. They say it is addressed to the courts alone, and that its purpose was to make sure treaties were superior to state laws. And they dismiss treating treaties as the equivalent to federal statutes as little more than sophistry. Treaties are international agreements, not domestic laws, they point out, and few treaties have any domestic implications. Equating the two simply because they are both forms of federal law and thus supreme over state law, they argue, is mere sophistry."

CNN.com - FindLaw Forum: The president, Congress and treaties - September 3, 2001

The "treaties" that Obama created were NEVER approved by the Senate so President Trump is more then allowed to get rid of them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If they are agreements, as were Obama's, yes, RGS.

But if they have been approved, they are Treaties, and, no, Picaro, they cannot be unconditionally abrogated by the President.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If they are agreements, as were Obama's, yes, RGS.

But if they have been approved, they are Treaties, and, no, Picaro, they cannot be unconditionally abrogated by the President.

Except as I read earlier Carter did exactly that and the Courts refused to intervene.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If they are agreements, as were Obama's, yes, RGS.

But if they have been approved, they are Treaties, and, no, Picaro, they cannot be unconditionally abrogated by the President.

Except as I read earlier Carter did exactly that and the Courts refused to intervene.

Give us an example. I do not remember Carter abrogating a Treaty the Senate approved, unless the language of the bill permitted the President to do that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If they are agreements, as were Obama's, yes, RGS.

But if they have been approved, they are Treaties, and, no, Picaro, they cannot be unconditionally abrogated by the President.

Except as I read earlier Carter did exactly that and the Courts refused to intervene.

Give us an example. I do not remember Carter abrogating a Treaty the Senate approved, unless the language of the bill permitted the President to do that.

Here Goldwater v. Carter - Wikipedia