Replies

The ABM treaty was ratified, but it contains an escape clause which Bush used. Since the treaty is the law of the land the escape clause it contained was law too, and Bush needed no further authority, as long as he followed the procedure the treaty outlined.

Here is the so-called "escape clause", from the ABM Treaty:

. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from thisTreaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

So, who are the parties to the treaty? Is it your contention that President Bush is a party to the treaty? If so, you are mistaken. Look at the first sentence of the actual treaty:

The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred to as the Parties,

In fact, wasn't it the argument of many conservatives that one of the parties, the USSR, no longer exists, and therefore, the treaty is null and void? Or is Vladimir Putin the other party? You can't have it both ways. It seems to me, though I don't know if it is anywhere in writing, that the US has continued the treaty with Russia, as if it were the other party. IMO, the argument that the disolution of the USSR nullified the treaty has some merit. At least I am not aware of the counterargument. But you simply can't argue that the treaty provides for the President of the US to withdraw on his own. It doesn't.

the argument that the disolution of the USSR nullified the treaty has some merit. At least I am not aware of the counterargument. But you simply can't argue that the treaty provides for the President of the US to withdraw on his own. It doesn't.

The dissolution of the USSR certainly qualifies as an "extrordinary event!" And treating the successors of the USSR with respect makes the event no less "extrordinary."
But as I recollect there was a colorable argument that one of the USSR's radar installations was over the line of treaty compliance. Would the judgement that the USSR had violated the ABM treaty have required congressional approval?

But you simply can't argue that the treaty provides for the President of the US to withdraw on his own. It doesn't.

I didn't argue that. Read what I said again. I said *IF* Bush followed the procedures of the escape clause then he needed no other authority. Now, if the argument is that the escape clause requires Congress to trigger it then Bush can't do it alone, but that is not contrary to what I said.

As for the merits of that argument, the treaty says the party is the USA. The President isn't just a man, he is the head of state, and is the only person that speaks for the USA. A prior President negotiated the treaty, signed it, and proposed it to the Senate. I don't think it's a leap to think a President, following the rules of the treaty, can trigger one of its clauses. That would be an executive function requiring no further legislative act.