As I pointed out, treaties are "Law of the Land." To withdraw from a treaty is to change a law. That's a legislative act. The President has no constitutional authority to change the law. None.
Shane
>--- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>>
>> andie: Some the examples below are flawed:
>>
>> > --"The Congress shall have power...To Declare
>> > War...": Art I, Sec 8, Cl. 10
>> > (Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War I&II,
>> > etc.)
>> >
>>
>> Well, Congress has that power. It's just that the
>> Executive has decided to go to war without declaring
>> it, a barbarism that the framers failed to foresee,a
>> nd Congress, which could do something about it
>> (cutting off the $, e.g.) hasn't.
>> ^^^^^^^
>> CB: The observation that the United States of
>> America is, today, scofflawful
>> with respect to its own Constitution's requirements
>> for conducting war is
>> essentially flawless.
>> ^^^^^--
>> "The President...shall have power, by and with the
>> > consent
>> > of the Senate, to make treaties...: Art II, Sec 2,
>> > Cl. 2
>> > (But Bush can withdraw from treaties without
>> > reference
>> > to the Senate or the faintest rebuke from Court)
>>
>> Make is one thing, withdraw is another. The ABM
>> treaty
>> contained provision sfor unilateral withdrawal.
>>
>> ^^^^^
>> CB: The best interpretation is that "make" includes
>> "unmake". Bush
>> scofflaws on this..
>> ^^^^^
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>>
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk