only congress can approve treaties?

[WickedLou9]

So there is a story that is brewing about this "agreement" that Bush wants to sign with Iraq. The Administration if being very careful NOT to call it a treaty because if it's a treaty, they need congressional approval. Essentially this " agreement" or Declaration of Principles as they are calling it... would commit the US to defending the Iraqi government from all 'Internal and External Threats'.. this means that we would be bound to interfere in the case of a civil war or if Iraq was invaded by another country. They are also very careful to use words like, "enduring" or "long-term" and a NEVER use the word permanent. So for all intents and purposes, it looks like a treaty and acts like a treaty, but if Bush can call it something else he doesn't need congressional approval... For something that our country will be comitted to for the foreseeable future, long after this administration is gone.

NPR: Long-Term Pact with Iraq Raises Questions




So it looks like this is just another end run around the law by the Bush admin, making up another name for something and trying to circumvent constitutional requirements.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So it looks like this is just another end run around the law by the Bush admin, making up another name for something and trying to circumvent constitutional requirements.

that's bullshit, but at least if it's not a formal treaty then the next administration can revoke it just as easily.

[kinggovernor]

congress still needs to approve the funding for this, so if the administration figures out a work around for this agreement, it could go unfunded.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

that's bullshit, but at least if it's not a formal treaty then the next administration can revoke it just as easily.

That part I am not sure of. Aparently presidents have been very reluctant to back out of these agreements. The last time we did something like that was Vietnam and it was a major international embarresment.
I guess in the end we can do whatever we want. If we want to back out we can just say "see ya later" and leave, but at what cost?

Interestingly enough, the Iraqi government calls it a treaty.

[Phantom]

Don't count on this, but I'll try to let you guys know what I remember...

Treaties, when approved by the Senate, have the force of law equal to a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. They can be revoked by a later law passed by Congress.

Executive agreements, do not have the force of law, are not enforceable as far as they are inconsistent with any laws on the books, must be within the president's powers, and can be revoked by a later president alone or revoked by a law.

It looks like the agreement above is based on the president's power as commander in chief and his power in foreign policy - so he is not legislating outside of his core powers.

I don't like the agreement either, but at least it is easily revocable by the next incoming president...

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Don't count on this, but I'll try to let you guys know what I remember...

Treaties, when approved by the Senate, have the force of law equal to a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. They can be revoked by a later law passed by Congress.

Executive agreements, do not have the force of law, are not enforceable as far as they are inconsistent with any laws on the books, must be within the president's powers, and can be revoked by a later president alone or revoked by a law.

It looks like the agreement above is based on the president's power as commander in chief and his power in foreign policy - so he is not legislating outside of his core powers.

I don't like the agreement either, but at least it is easily revocable by the next incoming president...

The problem is that the agreement that he is entering into basically has all of the hallmarks of a treaty. Withdrawing from one of these presidential agreements would be very embarresing for the US and would probably result in the loss of a good ally in the middle east. Since he is commiting us to something this significant that basically is a treaty, it should go through the same approval process that a treaty would.

[Thorgrim]

Congressional Treaties are equal in power to constitutional amendments, yes you read that right

These kind of things, as people have said, have little power and the next president on his own can change or abrogate

However, as said before, it makes it look like the "Leader of the Free World" and his word mean little to nothing, just wait 4 years and you'll get a different answer

Bush knows it would make for an excellent talking to point to go "President Hillary Clinton not only ran from Iraq, but she destroyed the word of the office of the Presidency and stained our national name by doing so"

Bush is trying to tie this in with honor...in Vietnam the dishonor was admitting defeat to the Communists, who are admitting defeat to here? While and After we are leaving, Al Qaeda has no serious chance of taking over the Sunni areas (the only area they could survive in...)

We are currently bribing all sides to be at peace, so there's no one we would actually be retreating from

So President Hillary Clinton could go "We defeated Saddam, we reduced the insurgency to a size that was doing far less damage" basically we left on a high note, and probably the best note we could after we already invaded...Americans really wouldn't care and they'd be happy to have our troops home and our expenses down

So now Bush has to make it more embarrasing to try and force the next president to stay or they'll have ammo for a large attack when that Democrat goes up for re-election

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Congressional Treaties are equal in power to constitutional amendments, yes you read that right

I think this might have been a typo, but

treaties approved by 2/3 the Senate have the same force of law as a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Congress (w/Pres) can revoke with a new law. They certainly are not on the level of constitutional amendments

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I think this might have been a typo, but

treaties approved by 2/3 the Senate have the same force of law as a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Congress (w/Pres) can revoke with a new law. They certainly are not on the level of constitutional amendments

they can revoke the treaty...and amendments can be revoked as well...

but here:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And ofcourse the Supreme Courts decision on this almost 100 years ago: Missouri v. Holland

With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of out whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago. The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution.

[Phantom]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You're misreading this section. Reading it your way, any law passed by Congress and signed by the President (what I underlined) would be on the same level as the Constitution.

This is not the case. The purpose of the Supremacy clause is only to establish a hierarchy of laws, with those of the Federal Government trumping anything by the states if a conflict exists.

Changes to the Constitution, whether additions or subtractions, require the amendment process (there are several ways, all of which require input from the STATES, but it is much more than getting a law passed and the President signing)

A treaty is on the same level as any law passed by Congress and signed by the President. It can be revoked/diminished by a later law. The Constitution cannot be changed so easily, it always requires input from the states for changes.

[Thorgrim]

I really suggest you read Missouri v. Holland

Laws are subject to a methodology "made in persuance thereof", there is a semicolon and Treaties are a whole different category

"Constitution..; and all treaties made...shall be the supreme law of the land" not laws...but Law

A proper treaty can not be revoked by a law

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I really suggest you read Missouri v. Holland

Laws are subject to a methodology "made in persuance thereof", there is a semicolon and Treaties are a whole different category

"Constitution..; and all treaties made...shall be the supreme law of the land" not laws...but Law

A proper treaty can not be revoked by a law

You're misreading again. I'll scan some my old bar review stuff for you when I get a chance. It doesn't have cites, but hopefully you will trust the docs prepared by one of the most respected con law profs in the country...

[Rouger2]

We should not get into a civil war, but hell we have already put ourselves in the middle of this one. These third world countries love the biggest baddest man and in Iraq that was Saddam and now I guess it is us not the Iraq government. We are stuck in the mud.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

You're misreading again. I'll scan some my old bar review stuff for you when I get a chance. It doesn't have cites, but hopefully you will trust the docs prepared by one of the most respected con law profs in the country...

I look forward to seeing what the "true" holding of Missouri v. Holland was...

If it helps my opinion comes not just from random readings but also a personal conversation with a top legal mind currently at Princeton who specializes in international law and treaties (and as stated, wrote a leading casebook on international law)
Jeffrey L. Dunoff*|* LAPA Fellow

That, combined with every conversation I've ever had with any legal mind on the issue reinforcing the idea...it's even listed on wikipedia that way...has made me have little doubt in the area

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I look forward to seeing what the "true" holding of Missouri v. Holland was...

If it helps my opinion comes not just from random readings but also a personal conversation with a top legal mind currently at Princeton who specializes in international law and treaties (and as stated, wrote a leading casebook on international law)
Jeffrey L. Dunoff*|* LAPA Fellow

That, combined with every conversation I've ever had with any legal mind on the issue reinforcing the idea...it's even listed on wikipedia that way...has made me have little doubt in the area

Holland had to do with the authority to make treaties - specifically in an area that the federal government would not ordinarily be able to govern. I'll admit the dicta is a bit misleading, but you have to read the case for the issue at hand, not the dicta (extrapolation).

I have a feeling you misunderstood the legal minds. It's difficult to explain/discuss this stuff without a solid background in constitutional law.

It simply defies common sense that the President and the Senate could change the constitution by treaty with another country, but need the states' involvement if no treaty is involved.

Anyway, I'll try to dig the stuff up and scan it for you.

[RMNIXON]

As if the Administation is clueless without the imput of NPR?

They are laying some formal groundwork for the next administration of either party.

This is not some run around the Congress.

[Phantom]

Thorgrim, see your PM.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Holland had to do with the authority to make treaties - specifically in an area that the federal government would not ordinarily be able to govern. I'll admit the dicta is a bit misleading, but you have to read the case for the issue at hand, not the dicta (extrapolation).

I have a feeling you misunderstood the legal minds. It's difficult to explain/discuss this stuff without a solid background in constitutional law.

It simply defies common sense that the President and the Senate could change the constitution by treaty with another country, but need the states' involvement if no treaty is involved.

Anyway, I'll try to dig the stuff up and scan it for you.

A lot of the things in the constitution defy common sense to many people

The professor you cited is very well known, as you also know, he was denied a position at another law school because of his radical views, and his articles on state action are...very extreme

The bottom line is that there are a great number of law professors who believe treaties are, as whoever wrote the wikipedia article on Holland said, "co-equal", the Constitution gives enough room for that interpretation, and legal reasoning by Justice Holmes is not worthless dicta...do I think a treaty can go "the 1st amendment no longer applies" no...but do I think it can bypass an amendment for a specific purpose that does not destroy the amendment? yes

If we made a treaty, ratified with 2/3 of the senate, etc...between Canada and the US, forming one universal healthcare relationship, that had all canadian and US citizens recieving universal healthcare, lower drug prices, etc...there is no constitutional argument against it, because like the 13th amendment jumps over the 10th amendment, so would this treaty

Now, if 10 years down the road, a new party sweeps into a 50%+1 majority, you're telling me a bare majority can simple write a statute saying "this treaty is null and void" and the treaty would be dead? That defies all common sense

I think since there is a disagreement between law professors (naturally...ever see Scalia and Breyer go at it?) I have one side you have another...since Holland is the only case to address the issue, and it has not been challenged...with almost 90 years of precedent I think I have the greater claim

However, you can disagree, and we can start throwing around more names of law professors (yes I know con law professors who have said the same thing i am saying), but I had a big discussion about incorporation just recently, and then a non-legal one about whether the holocaust happened or not...i have no desire for a long drawn out discussion

so we'll have to agree to disagree

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

As if the Administation is clueless without the imput of NPR?

They are laying some formal groundwork for the next administration of either party.

This is not some run around the Congress.

They are not clueless, they know exactly what they are doing. And it' snot NPR telling us that it's an issue, they are reporting the story.
Perhaps you have been sleeping for the past 7 years or so but this administration has been all about circumventing congress and usurping as much power as possible.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

A lot of the things in the constitution defy common sense to many people

The professor you cited is very well known, as you also know, he was denied a position at another law school because of his radical views, and his articles on state action are...very extreme

The bottom line is that there are a great number of law professors who believe treaties are, as whoever wrote the wikipedia article on Holland said, "co-equal", the Constitution gives enough room for that interpretation, and legal reasoning by Justice Holmes is not worthless dicta...do I think a treaty can go "the 1st amendment no longer applies" no...but do I think it can bypass an amendment for a specific purpose that does not destroy the amendment? yes

If we made a treaty, ratified with 2/3 of the se