Posted on 12/14/2023 2:33:03 PM PST by algore
“Dem Presidents have ignored treaties. Clinton for one when it came to Taiwan.”
How so? I don’t remember that?
I agree. But my post was to illustrate that Presidents (mostly Democrats) often act like they have the force of a treaty behind them and nothing is done. In that regard, I’d say that an easy way to end NATO is to defund it in budget preparations and in operational support orders as CINC.
Rubio F’s us.
They had a policy toward China that stated they intended not to defend Taiwan if attacked.
The Senate approves foreign treaties - and NATO is a foreign treaty.
“The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” (Article II, section 2).
In any event, alliance member or not, no president would be compelled to do anything as a result of being an alliance member. The decisions if, when and how to use force pursuant to the NATO treaty still rest with the president. This is an anti-Trump move by the terrible Neocon Marco Foam Party Rubio.
Article II does grant foreign policy power to the president.
The uniparty is already plotting to sabotage Trump's second term.
Indirectly of course.
Why would they bother unless they thought the next President might actually consider such a thing? Not a.whole lot of candidates with that as a potential policy - heck, just one that I can think of.
I see, the plan is to pass legislation to prevent Trump or someone like him from working in his countries best interests.
It's been over twenty years since the treaty was signed and as stipulated in the treaty, "...any party may cease to be a party one year after its notice of denunciation..."
Add to that Article II of our Constitution which grants power of foreign policy to the president.
I believe Trump would have the power to drop the treaty.
“But my post was to illustrate that Presidents (mostly Democrats) often act like they have the force of a treaty behind them and nothing is done.”
Congress can use their control of spending to curtail a presidents actions they do not like, if they chose. Rarely when it comes to “international agreements” (outside of treaties) does Congress act against a president in those cases. It is a great failing of Congress as it, by its own choices to act or to not act has made the Presidents stronger than Congress in ways the Constitution never intended.
tells me they’re expecting Trump for the win!
In the end there is no controlling legislation that is passed without benefit of a President’s signature save those issues that are overridden by sheer veto-proof vote numbers. The House can play games with the budget, but so can a President in deciding whether to sign or not.
Yup.
Congress really has its fingers on pulse of what the average American is thinking .
Last paragraph. We’re back to paying the bulk of NATO’s costs under Biden, not to mention Ukraine as well. Why aren’t the Europeans paying their fair share? Because they’re too busy paying for socialist programs and migrants benefits.
Translation: NATO is a money laundering operation that we won’t let Trump endanger.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;I suppose a liberal judge could be found to rule that the "power to make treaties" infers through "penumbras, formed by emanations" the power to "unmake" treaties, too.
However, if a President were to have the power to unmake a treaty, the Senate's 2/3rds concurrence must still apply.
That would make this law moot and unconstitutional.
-PJ
What an evil bunch of traitors we have in Congress
Fake problem fakely solved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.