Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:31:39 -0400
Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:

> 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.

It's not a veto issue; the constitution (Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2)
states:

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
present concur;

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.

Celejar