Hi FaultLine; Re: "IMO, by Constitutional definition, it has not been signed."
I guess this is one of those cases where it depends on the definition of "is". As far as what the Bush administration thinks, however, it was signed:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 28, 2001
...
MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was not ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratification of it.
...
Q: But we have made a commitment. I mean, you said there's nothing to withdraw from. You make a certain commitment when you sign a treaty.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the commitment on the treaty is dependent on ratification. As you know, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying it. It also is dependent on actions taken by the international community. When only one out of 55 nations required to put the treaty into effect has acted, it's a signal worldwide that others agree with the President's position on the treaty.
...
Q: What nation ratified it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Romania submitted it for it to be in effect -- Romania did.
usinfo.state.gov
My reading of the constitution is that they make it clear that there is a difference between "signed" or "signatory" and "ratified". While this is a bit of a word game, since it was ratified by the Founding Fathers, I'll take that as a sign.
-- Carl |
