Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:31:39 -0400
Roberto C. Sánchez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 12:55:15PM -0400, email@example.com wrote:
> > On 23 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:03:16AM -0400, firstname.lastname@example.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.
It's not a veto issue; the constitution (Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2)
He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
So the power is his, although he needs the 'advice and consent' of the
Senate; if he's not interested, there's no treaty. I don't think
there's any possibility of veto.