[lbo-talk] USA scoffs laws

[andie nachgeborenen]

That's not an interpretation that has ever had the
support of any court, anywhere, at any time. Ergo, it
is wrong. I am not an expert in international law. But
I would hazard a guess that you can read the
termination provisions of the ABM (and I presume other
treaties), as ratified by the Senate, as a delegation
of any hypothetical power Congress may have over the
termination of treaties.

 jks

--- Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> >.... As to your
> >interpretation of "make" to mean "end," do you have
> >any authority for that? (As any judge would say . .
> .
> >.) jks
> 
> 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
> 
> ___________________________________
>
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