--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> I found a discussion of the ABM treaty termination
> issue (and the lawsuit that was filed by 32
> congressfolx) here:
>
>
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_01-02/briefs_janfeb03.asp#abm
>
>
>
> ABM Lawsuit Dismissed
> A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit December 30 by
> 32 members of the House of Representatives charging
> that President George W. Bush could not unilaterally
> withdraw the United States from the 1972
> Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. It is unclear
> if the representatives, led by Dennis Kucinich
> (D-OH), will appeal the decision. (See ACT,
> July/August 2002.)
>
> Judge John D. Bates, citing two points, rejected
> hearing the representatives' claim that Congress
> needs to give its assent for the United States to
> withdraw from a treaty. Bates ruled that the
> representatives did not have the proper standing to
> bring the case because they were not personally
> injured by the president's act and because the issue
> of treaty termination is a "nonjusticiable
> 'political question' that cannot be resolved by the
> courts."
>
> On the first point, Bates asserted that, since the
> representatives were claiming that they suffered "a
> grievous institutional injury by being deprived of
> their constitutional right and duty to participate
> in treaty termination," they could not claim
> personal injury, a prerequisite for bringing a
> lawsuit. Bates also denied that the representatives
> could even claim an "institutional" injury,
> declaring that they "have not been authorized,
> implicitly or explicitly, to bring this lawsuit on
> behalf of the House, a committee of the House, or
> Congress as a whole." He further observed that, in
> the time after the United States withdrew from the
> ABM Treaty in June 2002, neither the House nor the
> Senate has objected as an institution to the
> president's action.
>
> Explaining his second reason for dismissing the
> case, Bates noted that no branch of government is
> assigned the authority to terminate a treaty but
> that the Constitution "clearly relegates authority
> over foreign affairs to the Executive and
> Legislative Branches, with no role for the Judicial
> Branch to second-guess or reconsider foreign policy
> decisions." He added that, since Congress had not
> asserted itself on the issue, neither should the
> court. Doing so "would preempt what is clearly the
> prerogative of Congress," Bates concluded.
>
> John Burroughs, a lawyer for the representatives,
> took heart from one aspect of the judgment, noting
> in a January 1 statement that Bates' decision "does
> not foreclose Congress from asserting its
> constitutional role in the treaty termination
> process."
>
>
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com