On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 12:55:15PM -0400, judd@wadsworth.org wrote: > On 23 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:03:16AM -0400, judd@wadsworth.org wrote: > > > ... > > > I believe that you are correct. Becoming a signatory is an executive > > branch function (usually some official in the state department, or the > > secretary of state) is authorized to do this. However, ratification > > is a legislative (specifically, the senate) function. > > > > Regards, > > > > -Roberto > > > > Technically, the president ratifies a treaty after it receives > the consent of 2/3 or the senate. Or, he can still choose not to > ratify it (http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh10.htm). I just now > discovered that myself. > Oh wow. I guess it makes sense, though, since the executive does retain veto power. However, since normally something needs a simple majority and 2/3 majority only to override a veto, I wonder what would happen in the case you describe. That is, the senate votes 2/3 to ratify the treaty, but the president vetoes. I wonder if there is a provision to override the veto then. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature