4 ms·

I speak as an ignorant outsider (Canadian) but have a legitamate concern when 3rd party onlookers are providing a more sensable explanation and rational summary

by TheCapn 15y ago

I speak as an ignorant outsider (Canadian) but have a legitamate concern when 3rd party onlookers are providing a more sensable explanation and rational summary regarding US law than the lawmakers themselves. Aside from the typical bouts of people shouting "corruption" and "incompitence" is there an honest reason for so many of these seemingly simple rules to be overlooked/ignored? I ask only because looking from the outside in, it seems more and more that the system currently employed is so ass backwards it bends logic. I want to keep a positive outlook and receive justification from all sides before creating a viewpoint that could be portrayed as prejudice.

B0Z 15y ago
The true answer to this is more involved than a simple comment can treat with justice. But... the dysfunction in our political system has been getting more and more noticeable over the last several years. Yes, it is ass backwards and it has never been this bad before. The more notice that it receives, the more people will begin to get involved, the better chance we have of changing how it works.
cube13 15y ago
It's because until the Obama administration starts implementing the treaty or brings it to congress, none of the rules have actually been broken. The constitution allows the president to sign any treaty he wants. After that, it needs to be brought to congress. Historically, presidents have signed treaties whenever they thought it was necessary, regardless of whether or not it would actually get ratified. For example, Woodrow Wilson's signature is on the Treaty of Versailles(http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-23.html http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-23.html), but congress never ratified it.
newbusox 15y ago
In addition to the comments before me, it's also because the rules are not as simple as they may seem, and the rules change with practice over time. Unless you believe that the U.S. Constitution and laws are absolutely inflexible (which not even the most strict textualists/orgininalist would, I think, contend), law changes via practice and via interpretation. In the US, it's almost always been the case that the lines between treaties, executive agreements, and something called congressional-executive agreements (consent of Congress, but less than the super-majority requirement of a treaty) are blurry and ambiguous. Given that, you could either presume that whatever the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid, it permits (in terms of executive power), or the opposite. Most presidents have presumed the former in the realm of executive agreements and treaties, meaning that, because the Constitution doesn't say that can't make these executive agreements, they've felt empowered to do so. This has been affirmed as permissible by the courts, and has happened very frequently, although that's not to say that future scenarios might arise that test the boundary between executive agreements and treaties in a way that hasn't been pushed before. In summary: U.S. Constitutional law and the common law are very complex. It's not entirely clear that any rules are being broken, even if Obama does not ask for Senate approval. A court of law would be the proper place to resolve this, presuming the case was justiciable, which is another issue. Lawmakers themselves are no more informed than this comment or other commentators, meaning that they themselves can't provide any definitive answers.

by TheCapn 15y ago

B0Z 15y ago

The true answer to this is more involved than a simple comment can treat with justice. But... the dysfunction in our political system has been getting more and more noticeable over the last several years. Yes, it is ass backwards and it has never been this bad before. The more notice that it receives, the more people will begin to get involved, the better chance we have of changing how it works.

cube13 15y ago

It's because until the Obama administration starts implementing the treaty or brings it to congress, none of the rules have actually been broken. The constitution allows the president to sign any treaty he wants. After that, it needs to be brought to congress. Historically, presidents have signed treaties whenever they thought it was necessary, regardless of whether or not it would actually get ratified. For example, Woodrow Wilson's signature is on the Treaty of Versailles(http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-23.html http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-23.html), but congress never ratified it.

newbusox 15y ago

In addition to the comments before me, it's also because the rules are not as simple as they may seem, and the rules change with practice over time. Unless you believe that the U.S. Constitution and laws are absolutely inflexible (which not even the most strict textualists/orgininalist would, I think, contend), law changes via practice and via interpretation. In the US, it's almost always been the case that the lines between treaties, executive agreements, and something called congressional-executive agreements (consent of Congress, but less than the super-majority requirement of a treaty) are blurry and ambiguous. Given that, you could either presume that whatever the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid, it permits (in terms of executive power), or the opposite. Most presidents have presumed the former in the realm of executive agreements and treaties, meaning that, because the Constitution doesn't say that can't make these executive agreements, they've felt empowered to do so. This has been affirmed as permissible by the courts, and has happened very frequently, although that's not to say that future scenarios might arise that test the boundary between executive agreements and treaties in a way that hasn't been pushed before. In summary: U.S. Constitutional law and the common law are very complex. It's not entirely clear that any rules are being broken, even if Obama does not ask for Senate approval. A court of law would be the proper place to resolve this, presuming the case was justiciable, which is another issue. Lawmakers themselves are no more informed than this comment or other commentators, meaning that they themselves can't provide any definitive answers.