Posted on 04/27/2017 1:11:59 PM PDT by ColdOne
Under what circumstances can the Executive enter an Executive agreement with other countries and it not be a treaty subject to Senate approval?
this from wikipedia...
"An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature as treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding. An executive agreement is one of three mechanisms by which the United States enters into binding international agreements. They are considered treaties by some authors as the term is used under international law in that they bind both the United States and a foreign sovereign state. However, they are not considered treaties as the term is used under United States Constitutional law, because the United States Constitution's treaty procedure requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and these agreements are made solely by the President of the United States. Some other nations have similar provisions with regard to the ratification of treaties.
In the United States[edit] An executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, or (3) from a prior act of Congress. For instance, it is as commander-in-chief that the President negotiates and enters into status of forces agreements (SOFAs), which govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces stationed in other nations. An executive agreement, however, cannot go beyond the President's constitutional powers. If an agreement was in the competence of the United States Congress, it would need to become a congressional-executive agreement or a treaty with Senate advice and consent. If an agreement was neither within the competence of Congress nor within the competence of the President (as for example an agreement which would affect powers reserved to the states), it could still be adopted by the President/Senate method but must not conflict with the United States Constitution.
The Case Act required the president to notify Congress within 60 days of any executive agreements that are formed; that figure has since been changed to 20 days.
Thank you for that information.
There is no Senate
The terminally constipated body is incapable of action
Needlessly complicated, as an unratified treaty they can just ignore it. America wrote the book on not ratifying treaties so you can ignore them when they get inconvenient.
What is stopping any judge that wants to from reinstating it?
Let them. This is a brilliant move. And it comports with the Constitution. Doubtful that two thirds of the Senate would support the “Treaty” as written. There are plenty of objectionable items that no Rep Senator would be able to defend to his/her constituency. It is an up or down vote since this is an international agreement. No amendments allowed or wanted.
Kyoto was defeated 98-0 in the Senate.
I think Clintons senate rejected Kyoto 99 against and 1 no vote
Sending it to the Senate would certainly get some sunlight on this bogus agreement that forces us and the West to take immediate action and allows the Chinese and Indians to delay any action until 2030. And then there is the redistribution of wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries under the auspices of the corrupt UN. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what third world dictators will do with this new found source of wealth.
Senate gets to approve Treaties
POTUS gets to kill or cancel Treaties.
See Trumps option to unilaterally cancel NAFTA, TPP etc
“and allows the Chinese and Indians to delay any action until 2030”
This.
I’m wondering about the status of the Paris Agreement in other countries. In the US, treaties are given special status in the Constitution, as they are approved by Congress, and have to be revoked by Congress.
What is the status of the Paris Agreement considered to be in other countries? Do they have the same concept of treaty as we do, and do they accord it that status? Or is it more of a gentlemen’s agreement between the leaders of the signatory countries that can be easily revoked?
Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
Is North Korea a signatory and beneficiary to this agreement? How about Iran? I ask because those two are busting it to go nuclear, and funding would be diverted. Or, knowing how Obama thinks, is it mostly an Africa/Muslim transfer-fest?
Agreed—easily the number of GOPers required to join the Dems would do so and pass it.
How idiotic do they think we are?
Science, real science, died in Europe many, many moons ago. Science has been so corrupted that the term ‘denier’ refers to the NONbelievers. For most of human history, science, and the scientific method, has allowed incredible advances to take place. I remember amazing science teachers, even as far back as elementary school, who inspired us to be more inquisitive, to explore, to take chances and come up with ideas and explanations. To not be afraid to propose hypotheses, and then seek out information to prove, or disprove, your idea. To want to explore and gather as much knowledge as possible about the world, the galaxy, the universe, and oneself. And later, as one matures, to be able to shed ideas proven false, and not worry about it. I’ve always enjoyed the image of a scientist gathering up all the information, gathering it up in one’s arms, bringing it to the desk of another colleague, and state ‘prove me wrong’ or ‘have at it!’ Now, so-called scientists refuse to share data. The more outrageous their claim, the more offended they become at the very thought of having to reveal just how they came to their conclusions. The only time that insane word ‘consensus was ever used before was that there was agreement in the process of re-creating, repeating the experiment, the research, to determine if the same result or conclusion developed. Whether with a microscope, a telescope, a shovel, or a combination of many instruments and tools, repetition was/is the key. If one cannot repeat and develop the same result, your idea might be one of the most interesting concepts ever, but it might not be real.
And today, many of the most fervent proponents of Globull Gloaming are the most offended when asked to produce and explain their research. Their status as one of the chief ‘believers’ should be enough, and any request for ‘evidence’ is tantamount to a challenge to a duel.
Creepozoids all.
Ping.
You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.
Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here, and here
I would do the same thing, this will kill it for all time.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON STILL IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE WHO BELIEVES “the president should abide by Mr. Obama’s global warming deal. . . .” SHOULD BE FIRED, FORTHWITH!
And then, President Trump can continue dismantling the Ophonybama Presidency!
WITHOUT LIEBERAL INTERFERENCE!
[No, I am not mad — well, just a little bit, I guess. I’m yelling because I’m passionate about ridding the USA of EVERY SINGLE VESTIGE OF OPHONYBAMA, INCLUDING HIS “HOLDOVERS!”]
</rant>
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.