[Paleo Conservative]

First, the House has no role with respect to treaties. Second, do the DemocRATS really want to go down this road? If Senate DemocRATS could argue that the President has no authority to terminate the treaty himself, Republicans could counter by saying that the ABM treaty was rendered obsolete by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Clinton declared the Russian Federation to be the successor state to the Soviet Union without any advice or consent of the Senate. If the Supreme Court were to rule Bush's termination of the treaty invalid, it would also have to rule that Clinton's declaration of Russia as the successor state is invalid. Either way the treaty dies.

[hchutch]

I think the President gets wide latitude in foreign affairs.

If Congress doesn't like it, they can pass a law requiring adherence to a treaty he withdraws from OR they can cut off funding.

Both actions are subject to a veto, of course.

[Timesink]

Second, do the DemocRATS really want to go down this road?

Of course they do! They've become so intellectually bankrupt, and so morally whored out to their various special interest groups (You do what Uncle Jesse tells you to do, son!) that the only chance they have is to throw as much mud as possible and pray something sticks.