ConstitutionCowboy
member
At the risk of beating a horse that really isn't quite dead, I think it's prudent to ease some minds - including Dick Morris's mind - about the proposed UN small arms treaty that's being crafted, and the fears that the treaty could become effective without the consent of the Senate.
Some say that if Hillery signs it and the Senate doesn't take it up right away and "disapprove" it, that it will become law in the United States until the treaty is "disapproved" by the Senate. The "Vienna Convention" treaty that became effective a few years ago being used to support that argument, and the US being signatory to the Vienna Convention, does not authorize our Secretary of State or the President to "ratify" a treaty or commit the United States to the tenants of a treaty until disapproved by the Senate.
The Vienna Convention Treaty defines someone with the power to sign a treaty and commit a country to it as follows:
Neither the President nor the Secretary of State have been authorized by our Constitution to have such full powers. The Constitution has no such provisions in it.
Even the following falls short of supposing such powers exist in a President of the United States or anyone else in our government:
The United States does not consider the President to have such power alone. The President cannot conclude a treaty without the consent of the Senate, therefore it is not a function of the President to commit the United States to a treaty; the Secretary of State is not accredited; and neither is anyone else accredited to commit the United States to a treaty nor is there any other process in our Constitution to that end.
Any treaty supposedly "consented" to even if temporarily while awaiting "up or down" from the Senate would not have the force of law behind it. The Vienna Convention Treaty, though it be supreme law in the United States, leaves enough of a loop hole that our constitutional means of ratifying treaties is left completely intact.
Woody
Some say that if Hillery signs it and the Senate doesn't take it up right away and "disapprove" it, that it will become law in the United States until the treaty is "disapproved" by the Senate. The "Vienna Convention" treaty that became effective a few years ago being used to support that argument, and the US being signatory to the Vienna Convention, does not authorize our Secretary of State or the President to "ratify" a treaty or commit the United States to the tenants of a treaty until disapproved by the Senate.
The Vienna Convention Treaty defines someone with the power to sign a treaty and commit a country to it as follows:
(c) “full powers” means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty;
Neither the President nor the Secretary of State have been authorized by our Constitution to have such full powers. The Constitution has no such provisions in it.
Even the following falls short of supposing such powers exist in a President of the United States or anyone else in our government:
1. A person is considered as representing a State for the purpose of adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty or for the purpose of expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty if:
(a) he produces appropriate full powers; or
(b) it appears from the practice of the States concerned or from other circumstances that their intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with full powers.
2. In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State:
(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;
(b) heads of diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;
(c) representatives accredited by States to an international conference or to an international organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty in that conference, organization or organ.
(a) he produces appropriate full powers; or
(b) it appears from the practice of the States concerned or from other circumstances that their intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with full powers.
2. In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State:
(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;
(b) heads of diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;
(c) representatives accredited by States to an international conference or to an international organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty in that conference, organization or organ.
The United States does not consider the President to have such power alone. The President cannot conclude a treaty without the consent of the Senate, therefore it is not a function of the President to commit the United States to a treaty; the Secretary of State is not accredited; and neither is anyone else accredited to commit the United States to a treaty nor is there any other process in our Constitution to that end.
Any treaty supposedly "consented" to even if temporarily while awaiting "up or down" from the Senate would not have the force of law behind it. The Vienna Convention Treaty, though it be supreme law in the United States, leaves enough of a loop hole that our constitutional means of ratifying treaties is left completely intact.
Woody
