I thought of it more in terms of Senators who didn't approve of a treaty, but didn't want to accept the political consequences of actually voting against it. As a result, they'd end up clogging the wheels.
You can see in Mr. Hamilton's language the bias toward adopting treaties as if they were necessarily matters of great urgency.
I agree that such matters shouldn't be unduly rushed, but they also shouldn't be unnecessarily delayed. The countries that we do business with, I think have a right to a reasonably punctual answer, one way or the other. If the answer is delayed because we're giving it due consideration, that's one thing. But if it's delayed simply because some Senators are playing some passive-agression game, that's not good.
Further, there is discussion of the difficulties due to transportation delays from states further afield.
But that would be all the more reason to require a 2/3 majority of the whole body, since it would be grossly unfair - by their own standards - to deliberately set up a system that would exclude the outlying states. I think they wrote these requirements with the assumption that the members would be present at the seat of government by the time the session began.
What in fact has happened is that (particularly in recent years, but I have records of such going back to the Roosevelt Administration) the Senate has rammed through treaties almost in the dark of night, that, were they subjected to debate or the requirement for full attendence and recorded vote, they would have failed otherwise for having alerted the opposition
I agree that's a problem. I think a good solution would be to repeal the 17th amendment, so as to make the Senate the independent body it once was, rather than beholden to the administration as it largely is now.
In that case it shouldn't be ratified.
I agree that such matters shouldn't be unduly rushed, but they also shouldn't be unnecessarily delayed.
There's no such thing in the case of a treaty. If you can't get 2/3, it's not a good enough deal for the United States.
The countries that we do business with, I think have a right to a reasonably punctual answer, one way or the other. If the answer is delayed because we're giving it due consideration, that's one thing. But if it's delayed simply because some Senators are playing some passive-agression game, that's not good.
Oh come on! It's the supreme law of the land. What in that case is "unduely" (examples please)? As far as I am concerned, it's better that it takes a long time. Consider the Panama Canal Treaty and the post facto reservations in Panama after ratification. Totally unconstitutional IMHO.
I think they wrote these requirements with the assumption that the members would be present at the seat of government by the time the session began.
That is one hell of an assumption given that it took weeks to travel from outlying states.
I agree that's a problem. I think a good solution would be to repeal the 17th amendment, so as to make the Senate the independent body it once was, rather than beholden to the administration as it largely is now.
Agreed about the 17th, along with the changes I suggest, especially to Article VI. Really, we've got literally dozens of treaties in place that simply must be junked on Constitutional grounds. Consider this one adopted in 1941 (Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere ):
The Convention on Nature Protection must be read to be believed. In his summary report to a distracted Senate, Executive Report No. 5, April 3 1941, Secretary of State Cordell Hull misrepresented its virtually unlimited scope.
From the Preamble (bold emphasis added):
"The Governments of the American Republics, wishing to protect and preserve in their natural habitat representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough to assure them from becoming extinct through any agency within man's control;"
After going on at considerable length about wilderness areas and national parks, they come back with this language in Article V Section 1:
"The Contracting Governments agree to adopt, or to propose such adoption to their respective appropriate law-making bodies, suitable laws and regulations for the protection and preservation of flora and fauna within their national boundaries but not included in the national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, or strict wilderness reserves referred to in Article II hereof."
All species, all land, no limits to the commitment. Mr. Hull made no mention of the scope of Article V in his summary. It was he who, upon Roosevelt's approval, convened the Planning Commission that created the United Nations soon after the adoption of this treaty. It is a document that exceeds the constitutional authority of the government of the United States.
It can't work either. This treaty is contrary to natural law.
Nature is a dynamic, adaptive, and competitive system. Under changing conditions, some species go extinct, indeed, for natural selection to operate, they must. The problem arises when human influence grows so powerful that one can always attribute loss of a species to being "within man's control." When humans ask, "Which ones lose?" the treaty specifies, "None," and demands no limit to the commitment to save them all. This of course destroys the ability to act as agent to save anything, much less objectively evaluate how best to expend our resources to do the best that can be done.
The demand of this treaty... cannot be logically satisfied.