3 ms·

There are three types of "treaties," only one of which requires a two-thirds vote by the Senate--the restricted interpretation of treaties in the US constitutio

There are three types of "treaties," only one of which requires a two-thirds vote by the Senate--the restricted interpretation of treaties in the US constitution, congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. "They are all considered treaties under internal law, but are distinct from the perspective of US law." Treaties has the force of law and are permanent, but can be repealed by an act of Congress... "By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President.[1] Likewise, a sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President's authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

cryptonector 9y ago
It's a heck of a lot more complicated than that, mostly because the Constitution says nothing about this topic. The U.S. has abrogated quite a few treaties[0]. Often it's been by Presidential fiat alone. There is not much case-law on the subject, and it's almost certainly a "political question" that the courts will not go near (lower courts might, but the SCOTUS almost certainly will refuse to decide whether POTUS or Congress can do this alone). Among other things there is the question of who has standing to bring suit, and that's a high enough bar to begin with. The last time the SCOTUS had a chance to say much about this, they said they couldn't[1] (but with only a plurality, not majority, so there is no precedent yet): "The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse." (the impasse being Congress passing a resolution opposing the President's action, which Congress did not do). [0] http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/QDown.ashx?ID=5563 http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/QDown.ashx?ID=5563 [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/996.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/996.html

cryptonector 9y ago

It's a heck of a lot more complicated than that, mostly because the Constitution says nothing about this topic. The U.S. has abrogated quite a few treaties[0]. Often it's been by Presidential fiat alone. There is not much case-law on the subject, and it's almost certainly a "political question" that the courts will not go near (lower courts might, but the SCOTUS almost certainly will refuse to decide whether POTUS or Congress can do this alone). Among other things there is the question of who has standing to bring suit, and that's a high enough bar to begin with. The last time the SCOTUS had a chance to say much about this, they said they couldn't[1] (but with only a plurality, not majority, so there is no precedent yet): "The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse." (the impasse being Congress passing a resolution opposing the President's action, which Congress did not do). [0] http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/QDown.ashx?ID=5563 http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/QDown.ashx?ID=5563 [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/996.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/996.html