The treaties signed with the Indian nations didn't require senate approval either.
Look what happened.
Worse yet, most lib s believe it too.
The treaties signed with the Indian nations didn't require senate approval either.
Look what happened.
Well, Bushy did too -- where were you cons utional scholars then?
What if it is a matter of disagreement with what Obama plans to sign, and simply pointing out the US cons utionality of it?
Do you want the president to sign an unenforceable treaty?
That can and likely will lead to war.
There are reasons why we have the government we have rather than a monarchy.
You sure about that?
Were they treaties?
Probably don't even need to sign anything tbh.
Nope. That's the point. The agreements don't have to be treaties.
It's not a treaty. lol war
Not absolutely, but to my knowledge there never has been a treaty with the Indian Nations prior to wiping them out, that was ratified by the senate. Best I know, 63% was the highest vote achieved.
Then don't call them treaties.
A treaty has a specific meaning, as addressed in our cons ution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons ution/articleii
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
They can call it whatever they want. Treaties are still called treaties even before the Senate ratify them, even if the Senate never does. They simply don't have the force of law in the US if not ratified by the US Senate.
There's plenty of treaties that the US never ratified, but other countries did and enforce amongst themselves.
So, question...
Do you think it's wise having an unratified treaty on the books involving nuclear arms?
The letter itself is a bunch of condescending paragraphs about a well know situation. Even the US has reneged from past ratified treaties and modified them unilaterally (ie: jurisdiction under the International Court of Justice).
Which is why the letter itself is more about melodrama than substance.
In what books? Do you even know what you're talking about?
I never did, genius.
Don't call it a treaty!
another angle: the group negotiating the deal includes the five permanent members of the UN security council, of which the UK and France are NATO allies. it's one thing for adversaries like Iran to question our commitment and reliability because of the GOP letter, the UN Security council and NATO allies doing so would be a tad more serious.
Obviously the GOP does not care about the special relationships we share with our allies.
It's an expression.
Then you are arguing outside the OP.
Goodbye.
or, they've deemed it to be electorally expedient to make a big show of pretending not to while the other party holds the presidency.
The president's word is not the word of America!
Do you think he's a dictator or king?
Actually, the OP clearly states it is not a treaty and even boutons said a treaty would have to be ratified.
What are you trying to argue with this definition that everyone has already agreed upon?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)