[lbo-talk] USA scoffs at its own laws

[Charles Brown]

andie:
Charles, The C has no requirements for _conducting_
war; it imposes a requirement for _declaring_ war. You
can argue that the framers assumed that we wouldn't be
running around conducting undeclared wars, but
nonetheless, they left the window open.
^^^^^
CB: Declaring is the first step in conducting, and clearly was intended as a
necessary premise to all elements of war that would customarily follow.
Do you have any authority for the proposition that they left the window open
?
^^^^^
andieAs to your
interpretation of "make" to mean "end," do you have
any authority for that? (As any judge would say . . .
.) jks
^^^^^
CB:  Same authority as for your "  Make is one thing, withdraw is another"
:>)
Lets go at it this way. The wording of the Constitution doesn't give the
President or anybody the authority to end treaties. Where is the source of
the President's authority to end treaties ? But then no treaty could ever be
ended. So, we look to the wording below for authority to end treaties, and
assume that "make" includes "unmake", which is the text would condition the
President's authority on the Senate's consent.


> "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)
>
>