Bill prohibits any president from leaving NATO without Senate consent

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vector99
Again, this has never happened...

Sure it has, plenty of times. United States tax treaties with other nations has changed our tax laws for citizens from when they were initially enacted.

I'm not aware of this, can you source me a link?

If laws are being changed without going through the proper methods, that's kind of a big deal

originally posted by: Vector99
I'm not aware of this, can you source me a link?

Source.

If laws are being changed without going through the proper methods, that's kind of a big deal

It is the 'proper method'. Congress consented after the President negotiated the treaty.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You linked me to the IRS, now I;m probably going to be audited

Are you saying we've bent over backwards so much that the IRS is a political tool now?

I know I got hit by them hard when I sold my small cart collecting business

Did something happen? Did I have a crappy accountant?

a reply to: Scapegrace

Democrats have become the party of foreign intervention and perpetual war it seems. 

One example proves you wrong : Afghanistan.

Every president since g w bush has lied about afghanistan (including trump). Trump still has continued an indefinite stay in iraq.

Trump, bush and obama have all been incredibly dishonest and push secret agendas in the middle east. Not to forget that sp do Republican and Democrat congressmen.

Here's a question.

IF the US enters into a treaty and the other side doesn't keep their side up.

Are we obligated to keep it?

And after spending 71% of total budget why are US senators spending billions of Dollars on nothing?

European defense welfare?

originally posted by: Boadicea

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?

Ummm...Bear in mind this is Wikipedia...

In Goldwater v. Carter,[9] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.[]1]

Treaties


According to this...it reads that unilateral repeal by the executive has no ruling by the SCOTUS and has yet to be resolved by the court...



Hope this helps your understanding...





YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

Thank you -- someone else posted the same link and I was able to check it out.

Much appreciated!

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images. Please read new thread.

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

One could argue that the NATO agreement does violate the Constitution. The clause about an attack on one is an attack on all forces Congress to commit to war when the President acts within the confines of the treaty and duties as CIC and orders intervention against the attacking country that committed the act of war.

NATO bypasses Congressional power of discretion with post war ideologies. If those ideologies are still valid then why is there no committees ferreting out socialists and communists holding office in the Federal, State and Local governments?

originally posted by: Vector99
You linked me to the IRS...

Yeah, because that page is a list of treaties we entered into with foreign nations that changed United States tax law. Something you asked for examples of, there's plenty on that list.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
One could argue that the NATO agreement does violate the Constitution. The clause about an attack on one is an attack on all forces Congress to commit to war when the President acts within the confines of the treaty and duties as CIC and orders intervention against the attacking country that committed the act of war.

Except Congress, who via the Constitution have war-making authority, ceded that via the verbiage in the treaty.

a reply to: Vector99

How did NATO come to OUR aid after that invocation?

Here's a list of what each NATO country contributed to America's War on Terror that ensued after the 911 attacks.

NATO: Coalition Contributions to the War on Terrorism 2001-2009.state.gov...

NATO = a bunch of nations relying on the US.

Why do they rely on us? Nukes and military spending.

Without the US funding it, there literally is no NATO.

NATO operates, for the most part, as a European wing promoting and protecting US and western interests. The USA has benefited more from NATO than any other member. NATO has extended the USA's industrial military complex to global proportions. If the USA didn't have a treaty with all those countries, it isn't likely we'd have the flexibility to "rule the free world" by having bases in countries all over the world.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Paragraph two covers that.

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...

It’s kind of eye opening to see some of these comments in favor of this separation of powers usurpation...

This is a microscope on how this incrementalism by global progressives works...

And the plebes just eat it up like so much manna...


“You have a republic...if you can keep it”...comes to mind...

“Death by a thousand cuts”...also comes to mind...

YouSir

Ageed. Oddly enough, this wasn't being pushed when a certain past President cranked out executive orders on a daily basis with his pen and phone.

Timing seems fishy to me.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Paragraph two covers that.

I'm aware, but it doesn't seem anyone thinks the treaty is un-Constitutional as it's never been challenged.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There’s a whole lot of things that don’t get challenged that should. Like how can a governing body retain various powers while deferring a multitude of responsibilities. That’s like expecting a paycheck for napping at your desk all day.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
There’s a whole lot of things that don’t get challenged that should.

The fact that no one, even the most ardent isolationist, hasn't challenged this treaty makes me think it doesn't violate the Constitution.

a reply to: Scapegrace

I think the title is misleading. It should say "Congressional approval" not "Senate approval". The bill came from a Senate committee but grants the House the power to restrain the President's actions. As should be the case under the Constitution.

I think that the submission of this bill perhaps indicates a fear that the President could 'go rogue' and start doing things that the other branches of government don't condone.

Also, what part of Europe is Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait or Iraq? I don't think you can blame NATO for any of the US's recent wars. If anything, the US has used NATO to drag other countries into conflicts that they otherwise would not have become involved.

Face it that the US is particularly war mongering and It isn't demarcated upon party lines. Many of the recent conflicts have been under Republican Presidencies, too.

Although I appreciate your anti-war stance, I don't think that allowing the President to usurp the rest of government will actually reduce the number of wars that the US gets into. Leaving NATO will further isolate the US from the rest of the world and the bill will redress a loophole in the Constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government.

Not that this bill comes from the Republican majority Senate. It looks to me that someone is concerned that the President may have an agenda other than what is best for the country.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: YouSir

Like Metallicus said, I could be sold on either side.

On one hand I don't want executive power effectively neutered, because then we can't make voting decisions to really shift the direction of our government when we need to.

On the other, we've seen many (almost all) run on a platform, and have a vastly different one once elected. I do worry sometimes that the wrong one could undo very important things.

Ironically I think NATO is pretty antiquated for today's global political environment. I wouldn't have much quarrel with our departure as we pay the most for it. But I don't think my opinion on it, or one presidents should be able to unravel something that many would be against.

Ummm...from my experience...it's pretty easy to sell someone...and by extrapolation...many someone's...on just about anything you'd care to sell them on...

Therefore...if you have a collective that has been sold an idea out of whole cloth...ultimately...what displays is merely a reflection of follower mentality...the vast majority is by far an omega collective...

What this informs...IMO...is the efficacy of propaganda and it's ability to shape the will of the collective...

Thank you of course to former President Obama...and the sunshine provision of the Smith Mundt act...(sp)…

So protestations of..."many would be against"...is only as good as the will of the collective to educate themselves out of the paradigm...

Obviously...the point is...if the collective rely on the MSM for their truths...then these truths need not be rooted in fact and their narrative can and will be steered by agenda and partisanship...


It matters not a whit to me what the collective thinks...or how they respond...within the context of the above statements...

The whole of the reason I voted for...and like President Trump...is that he did run on a platform...granted...but on one that he is doing his level best to accomplish...despite the entirety of the MSM...and both political parties...

For three years we've been treated to nothing but 24/7 slander and outright sedition...soft coup and attempting to undermine the will of the electorate in order to overturn an election...


This effort to tie the hands of the executive branch will eventually be settled in the SCOTUS...and there we'll see how it eventually plays out...





YouSir

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Scapegrace

Democrats have become the party of foreign intervention and perpetual war it seems. 

One example proves you wrong : Afghanistan.

Every president since g w bush has lied about afghanistan (including trump). Trump still has continued an indefinite stay in iraq.

Trump, bush and obama have all been incredibly dishonest and push secret agendas in the middle east. Not to forget that sp do Republican and Democrat congressmen.

Bush had a complete withdrawal timeline .
Obama put it off for years after that date.
Then decided that a portion would have to remain indefinitely .

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Cause I can.