Even if you agreed that the President cannot withdraw from a treaty without Senate approval, the lawsuit should still be thrown out. House Democrats have NO standing in the court. The lawsuit can only come from the Senate.
Nevertheless, the Senate would lose such a lawsuite also.
For supporting the argument that the Congress, specifically the Senate, does not have the power to require its approval for the removal of executive branch officers that it has confirmed into office the following two brief articles will lend some support. The very parallel case of Senate confirmation of executive branch officers and the ratification of Treaties as presented by Professor Ramsey's article can be seen in the following historical events.
This very type of Constitutional question led directly to the first impeachment and trial of a President of the United States in 1867. The core constitiutional legal issue was finally resolved by the Supreme Court in 1926.
The charges against President Johnson stemmed from the Tenure of Office Act of 1867. This law, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1926, required the president to get the Senate's permission to remove any officeholder whose appointment it had to confirm.Johnson was so angered by this challenge to the power of the president that he tested the law by suspending Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the only Radical sympathizer in his cabinet, and replacing him with Ulysses S. Grant.
Eleven articles of impeachment were brought, charging Johnson with unlawfully removing Stanton and violating the Reconstruction Acts. The House of Representatives passed a resolution impeaching Johnson by a vote of 126 to 47.
When the trial began in the Senate, Johnson`s attorneys argued that the act was unconstitutional and did not even apply to Stanton because he was appointed by Lincoln and not Johnson. On May 16 the Senate voted 35 to 19 in favor of impeachment. Seven Republicans voted for Johnson out of fear of weakening the presidency and the Republican party. The constitution requires for a vote of two thirds for impeachment so Johnson survived by one vote.
Source: PBS.org-Newshour
Tenure of Office ActTenure of Office Act, in U.S. history, measure passed on Mar. 2, 1867, by Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson; it forbade the President to remove any federal officeholder appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate without the further approval of the Senate. It also provided that members of the President's cabinet should hold office for the full term of the President who appointed them and one month thereafter, subject to removal by the Senate. With this measure the radical Republicans in Congress hoped to assure the continuance in office of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and thus prevent any interference with the military occupation of the South in their Reconstruction plan. In order to bring about a court test of the constitutionality of the act, Johnson dismissed Stanton, but the Supreme Court, intimidated by the radicals, refused to pass on the case. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, whom Johnson appointed Secretary ad interim, turned the office back to Stanton when the Senate refused to approve his dismissal. Johnson then appointed Gen. Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War, but Stanton, barricading himself in the department, refused to yield. Johnson's alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act was the principal charge in the impeachment proceedings against him. When this move failed (May, 1868), Stanton finally gave up. The act, considerably modified in Grant's administration, was in large part repealed in 1887, and in 1926 the Supreme Court declared its principles unconstitutional.
Source: InfoPlease.com
I think that the House Democrats will learn that the Judiciary will say they don't have a dog in this fight. First because the fight ain't legal. Second, because it ain't their dog, it belongs to the Senate.
dvwjr