Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think that analogy is entirely apt. First off, the treaty is ratified by the Senate, not Congress. Ratification of a treaty is in many respects closer to confirmation of an executive appointment. The President is widely regarded as having the power to terminate executive appointments without Senate approval (although, yes, this was disputed in the early days of the Republic). So why not so for treaties? Even more so since the President's power in foreign affairs is generally regarded as being as its zenith, particularly as compared to domestic matters.
I realize the point is arguable, but I don't think it's as clear as you make it.
|
I haven't researched the issue in a couple of years, but at one point, Treasury was making noise about having the President withdraw from a tax treaty with one of the tax haven jurisdictions and I had to research the matter. I'm fairly certain we reached the conclusion that it would take an Act of Congress to abrogate a treaty once it entered into force.
Outside of the tax arena, I think you may find that the same argument won the day when Reagan or Bush I made some noise about abrogating the Test Ban Treaty.
