But look, Shane, I am sorry to say that you are out of your depth here. The law is what the lawyers say it is. It only _looks_ like English. It's actually Law-ish; maybe we should go back to doing in in law French to remove the natural confusion.
The judge got the case exactly right. Btw, a Senate suit would have fared just as badly. The matter is still nonjusticiable. The proper remedy for a presidential invasion of a Congressional prerogative is impeachment. And, moreover, there no plausible case that there was any such invasion, unless you insist, nontextually! -- that "enter" also means "leave."
jk
jks
--- Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
> >The judge got it exactly right. I would have have
> >written the opinion along just those lines. If
> >Congress wants to mix it up with the Prez and
> assert
> >its power to ratify withdrawals from treaties, I'd
> be
> >pleased as punch, of course. jks
>
> The judge got it right, but very inexactly so. The
> suit should
> have been dismissed because it was brought by
> members
> of the House only--who could be denied standing
> because
> the treaty-making (and consequently unmaking)
> process
> involves only the Senate and the President. A
> Senator
> would therefore have standing because she was denied
> her constitutionally specified right to advise and
> consent
> to the [un]making of a treaty.
>
> The judge is wrong that the judiciary is debarred
> from
> >acting since 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." If Bush's withdrawal proclamation
> was
> unconstitutional, then any subsequent action he or
> a successor might take in violation of the treaty
> would
> be flatly illegal and thus justiciable. But since,
> presumably,
> no such action had been taken before the suit was
> decided,
> he would have been right to dismiss it as premature.
>
> Of course all this is based on the proposition that
> the
> Constitution means what it *says*. I realize that
> most
> lawyers have been indoctrinated to believe the
> opposite--
> that the Constitution means whatever lawyers in
> robes
> say it means.
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "When we read on a printed page the doctrine of
> Pythagoras that all
> things are made of numbers, it seems mystical,
> mystifying, even
> downright silly.
>
> When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of
> Pythagoras that all
> things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently
> true." (N.
> Weiner)
>
>
>
> >--- 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
> >___________________________________
>
>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