Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (61583)	12/13/2002 6:15:55 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

The argument that the US should comport itself consistently with a treaty which remains unratified is politically expedient for Presidents, who may have the ability to sign treaties but no way to force the Senate to ratify them. As of 1/1/99, the Heritage Foundation estimated that there 30 treaties which had been signed by the President or his representative but never submitted to the Senate, and an additional 50 which had been submitted to the Senate but never acted upon. heritage.org Lest anyone think this was something that occurred only during the Clinton administration, according to a letter from Jesse Helms to Colin Powell, some of the treaties dated back to World War I. This issue arose in the context of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Clinton Administration took the position that the US was, nevertheless, bound by it because the Administration signed it. >>I shall once again indicate my rejection of the reckless unconstitutional conduct of and by the Clinton Administration that, by the mere act of signing a treaty, the United States automatically must enforce its terms before it has been approved. This wrongheaded notion perhaps is a result of absurd policy interpretations attached to Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties during the Lyndon Johnson Administration. The United States is not a party to the Vienna Conventions. Global strategic and diplomatic landscapes have changed dramatically since the Johnson Administration. It is time to bring the State Department’s position (concerning Article 18 of the Vienna Convention) into line with U.S. constitutional reality, i.e., that the United States is not subject to any obligation of any kind pursuant to a treaty not approved by the United States Senate.<< clw.org