3 ms·

What are the practical differences between the two? Is it that we aren't making any binding agreement with sovereign countries like we would when ratifying a tr

by pavon 5y ago

What are the practical differences between the two? Is it that we aren't making any binding agreement with sovereign countries like we would when ratifying a treaty, instead we just happen to change our laws in line with the accord, but are free to change them again at anytime?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> What are the practical differences between the two? Historically (pre-17th Amendment), the treaty power allows government-to-government agreements without the directly elected representatives of the people intervening to screw things up; their interference was feared to complicate diplomacy. But other than procedural differences, there aren't any practical differences, a treaty ratified by the Senate and a congressional-executive agreement passed by both Houses and the President, and normal legislation (with the President or over his veto), or, I guess, a hypothetical sole-congressional agreement [0] all have exactly the same legal force. > Is it that we aren't making any binding agreement with sovereign countries like we would when ratifying a treaty, instead we just happen to change our laws in line with the accord, but are free to change them again at anytime? The Supreme Court has found (and the fact that Congress in Art. I, Sec. 8, is given the power to define what is and isn't an offense against the law of nations suggests that this is correct) that Congress is free to amend ratified treaties for the purpose of domestic law by normal legislation, so that's not a difference (though it is definitely also true of congressional-executive agreements, which are normal legislation.) [0] where Congress takes a text, say, adopted by an international conference and adopts it over a Presidential veto; active negotiation of such an agreement might have some other legal issues.

3 ms·

What are the practical differences between the two? Is it that we aren't making any binding agreement with sovereign countries like we would when ratifying a tr

by pavon 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago
> What are the practical differences between the two? Historically (pre-17th Amendment), the treaty power allows government-to-government agreements without the directly elected representatives of the people intervening to screw things up; their interference was feared to complicate diplomacy. But other than procedural differences, there aren't any practical differences, a treaty ratified by the Senate and a congressional-executive agreement passed by both Houses and the President, and normal legislation (with the President or over his veto), or, I guess, a hypothetical sole-congressional agreement [0] all have exactly the same legal force. > Is it that we aren't making any binding agreement with sovereign countries like we would when ratifying a treaty, instead we just happen to change our laws in line with the accord, but are free to change them again at anytime? The Supreme Court has found (and the fact that Congress in Art. I, Sec. 8, is given the power to define what is and isn't an offense against the law of nations suggests that this is correct) that Congress is free to amend ratified treaties for the purpose of domestic law by normal legislation, so that's not a difference (though it is definitely also true of congressional-executive agreements, which are normal legislation.) [0] where Congress takes a text, say, adopted by an international conference and adopts it over a Presidential veto; active negotiation of such an agreement might have some other legal issues.