Bill prohibits any president from leaving NATO without Senate consent

a reply to: Vector99

They did. Its in the history books now.
The only time the NATO treaty has ever been invoked was after the 911 attacks.
To aid the United States.
Maybe look it up before you say nay?
www.dailykos.com...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vector99

They did. Its in the history books now.
The only time the NATO treaty has ever been invoked was after the 911 attacks.
To aid the United States.
Maybe look it up before you say nay?

Are you illiterate? Serious question, I know there are several talk-to-type programs available, so it would explain you not reading the post you commented on.

a reply to: Vector99

www.dailykos.com...


and you should try being nicer.

a reply to: Vector99

and I am perfectly literate.
I answered this question

How did NATO come to OUR aid after that invocation?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vector99

www.dailykos.com...


and you should try being nicer.

I guess illiterate then, since I never once said that the article wasn't invoked.

I don't like the idea of being in a treaty with any countries who are also a member of the EU.
There is a potential for nations to be obligated to both defend and attack..... the same country.
The EU wants its own military.... irony being what it is, this scenario is almost certain to happen.

Another attempt of usurpation of power by those snip clowns in Congress.

Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by the normal legislative process,or by the President alone, respectively.

Throughout American history, presidents have also made international agreements through congressional-executive agreements, that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or executive agreements, made by the President—in the exercise of his Constitutional executive powers—alone.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

States may not exercise certain powers reserved for the federal government: they may not enter into treaties, alliances or confederations, grant letters of marque or reprisal, coin money or issue bills of credit (such as currency).

en.wikipedia.org...:_Limits_on_the_States

Remind me again who Senators represent ?

States.

Another attempt to weaken the executive.

a reply to: Vector99

Maybe thats what you think you said.
What does "what did they do?", mean to you?

They provided soldiers for an attack on Iraq.
Hey that was your guy but still thats what NATO did.

And again, why do you have to be so nasty? Are people mean to you?
You should try winning an argument without insulting your fellow members.
Or I could just leave and you have no one to play with this early in the morning.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Scapegrace


Ummm...I’m afraid this is just another usurpation of executive powers by the legislature...

I don’t think this will pass the SCOTUS smell test...as it shouldn’t...

How so? I am seriously asking. I know that the Constitution grants the president the power and authority to negotiate treaties, and requires Senate advice and ratification of any/all treaties, but I'm not familiar with any mention of the proper protocol or authority for ending treaties.

So it does seem reasonable to require Senate advice and ratification for ending treaties, since they are involved in the original authorization of the treaty.

But I'm willing to learn... what have you got?

originally posted by: Vector99
Congress has sole power in negotiating/enacting treaties, POTUS has sole power of removal of treaties.

That is not accurate. Congress can modify or repeal treaties as upheld by the Supreme Court in Edye v. Robertson.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vector99

Or I could just leave and you have no one to play with this early in the morning.

That would be a pleasant surprise, so please do me that favor, thanks in advance.

To state the obvious.

Trump already has the power or they wouldn't have made the bill to prevent him exiting Nato.

originally posted by: Boadicea
...but I'm not familiar with any mention of the proper protocol or authority for ending treaties.

There really is very little precedent other than the case I mentioned. In instances of a President unilaterally pulling out of a treaty like Carter or Bush (2nd) there was either never a formal case filed, in the case of the former, or in the latter that formal intent was given in the outlined timeframe as proscribed in the treaty.

And as for people pissing and moaning that it 'weakened the Executive', that's actually a very good thing, the Executive Branch has grown in power tremendously since our founding and is far outside the scope of what the Constitutional framers envisioned. It needs to be cut back.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
Congress has sole power in negotiating/enacting treaties, POTUS has sole power of removal of treaties.

That is not accurate. Congress can modify or repeal treaties as upheld by the Supreme Court in Edye v. Robertson.

Well, had you quoted me in entirety you would know that I said exactly that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And as for people pissing and moaning that it 'weakened the Executive', that's actually a very good thing

Seriously?

The President should bend the knee to a bunch of part time, and full time NEOCONs?

The other co-sponsors are Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chris Coons

Sunday shows - Republicans, Democrats maneuver ahead of House impeachment vote
Senate Democrat 'gravely concerned' about what Trump might do before election if acquitted

(D-Del.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The same bill was introduced last year after Trump rattled NATO allies at a July summit in Brussels. The sponsors last time were Kaine, Gardner, Reed and the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

This bill is pure snip.

originally posted by: Vector99
Well, had you quoted me in entirety you would know that I said exactly that.

You saying the Executive has sole power in revoking treaties is not accurate regardless of what you posted subsequently, which did nothing to correct that statement.

originally posted by: neo96
Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. The Executive, as envisioned by the Founders, is far outside where they envisioned.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There really is very little precedent other than the case I mentioned. In instances of a President unilaterally pulling out of a treaty like Carter or Bush (2nd) there was either never a formal case filed, in the case of the former, or in the latter that formal intent was given in the outlined timeframe as proscribed in the treaty.

Thank you. I've been wracking my brain trying to remember any such situation, and only have very hazy memories of somethingsomething being said or done!

And as for people pissing and moaning that it 'weakened the Executive', that's actually a very good thing, the Executive Branch has grown in power tremendously since our founding and is far outside the scope of what the Constitutional framers envisioned. It needs to be cut back.

I agree. The separation powers also serves double duty as checks and balances. That seems to be forgotten (or just ignored) too often. Obviously, our president needs to be more than a figurehead, with some power and authority to execute the nation's laws and business, but there must also be a counter-balance to prevent the president from becoming a dictator.

I'm not seeing a downside to requiring the president obtain the advice and consent of the Senate to end a treaty that required the advice and consent of the Senate to begin with -- and for the same reasons. That seems reasonable and logical to me.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
Well, had you quoted me in entirety you would know that I said exactly that.

You saying the Executive has sole power in revoking treaties is not accurate regardless of what you posted subsequently, which did nothing to correct that statement.

The executive branch does possess sole power of treaty.

If congress wants to get involved they need to seek remedy via the judicial branch.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.