Why is Obama signing the Nuclear Treaty before the Senate votes on it?

[LeftyAndProud60]

Is this normal, and should everyone wait? Republicans are really unpredictable. Well they're predictable ass holes who do unpredictable things.

[Ineeda]

1. I think --and I could be wrong,

that the treaty is signed by the President, then ratified by Congress.

[LeftyAndProud60]

3. So if he signs it and they don't ratify it, it's void? Does it work like this in Russia too?

[Hosnon]

4. No. Ratification by the Senate is required for a treaty to be the law of the land.

But it is not required for a treaty to be valid pursuant to international law.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. If the treaty isn't ratified, it's just a piece of paper

And the treaty has a clause in it (at least I presume) that states in order for it to enter force, both parties must ratify it. Russia isn't exactly a democracy, though, so I would imagine Medvedev won't have much trouble with ratification.

[karynnj]

9. Yes - it's void

I think that is what happened on Kyoto, and there they did not even submit it to the Senate for a vote. (Some say the Senate "voted against it", but that is because the Senate voted nearly unanimously for Byrd/Hagel 4 months earlier which listed criterion they wanted in a climate change bill - the two biggest things were that inclusion of the big third world countries and they wanted a bill that would not disadvantage American manufacturing.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. How was Bush II able to pull out of all of those treaties unilaterally?

Or were those (ABM treaty, etc.) just working agreements or things that had been sent to Congress but hadn't been ratified yet?
:shrug:

It would seem to me that Congress would have to consent to pull out of (or "un-ratify") treaties.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Whether the President can do that is actually very ambiguous

The Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments in a case where Barry Goldwater sued the Carter Administration for unilaterally pulling out of a defense pact with Taiwan. They stated that because congress had not formally objected to the action via resolution, there was no constitutional question.

So it's possible that the Supreme Court could revisit this issue in the future, but for now it seems to be implict precedent that Presidents can pull out of a treaty without congressional approval.

Note also that the constitution doesn't state whether or not the President can fire his Senate confirmed appointees without approval of the Senate. Over time it was decided that this was an implied power.

[karynnj]

10. Very interesting, looking back at the articles on withdrawing from the ABM treaty,

here is what CNN said,

"The President of the United States has executive authority to negotiate or withdraw the United States from treaties without seeking congressional approval. The Senate has authority only to ratify treaties. "
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/

Somehow, this sounds like it should be wrong - and it also means that if Obama manages a miracle and gets a Climate Treaty through the Senate - no easy thing, Kerry would need to get 67 votes, all it would take was a Republican President with a pen to end it.

[whistler162]

11. One of the more famous instances is Wilson at the end of

WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.

He signed, reluctantly since most of his 14 points where excluded, and Congress didn't ratify it at all.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Thanks for the information

It is pretty depressing to know that it is so easy to pull out of treaties, particularly when they're ones (like the aforementioned climate treaty) most likely to be subject to RepublicON reversal the instant they regain power. :puke:

[RoyGBiv]

2. Yes, this is normal. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Treaties are first signed by the President then ratified by the Senate

The United States is a signatory to several treaties including the Kyoto Protocol, the ICC, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which have not been ratified by the Senate.