"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Bob
*Like I've said, I'm no ConLaw guru, but I've never heard of this before -- that a President can unilaterally decide to withdraw from a treaty signed by the President and approved by the Senate. Must not come up too often. But, given the fact that two smart guys like Slave and SAM say it, I am willing to go along with it.

I'm not quite sure I said that, but I'l trust you. I don't really listen to myself anyway.

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Fifth Circuit strikes down Texas's ban on dildoes. Yay, dildoes!

YAY!!!!!!


ETA: I can't express how much I LOVE this opinion.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm not quite sure I said that, but I'l trust you. I don't really listen to myself anyway.

Oh, hey, don't let me put words in your mouth. It's just that I was more curious about the mechanism of an executive branch treaty withdrawal power than I was about whether or not it actually existed.

So, despite the treaty requiring immediate withdrawal of all US forces to Malibu, can President Spears simply ignore the requirement or pretend that it doesn't exist, and leave elements of the First Marine Expeditionary Force patrolling the rubble of the Au Club's DJ Booth?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I take it you didn't do very well in Con Law. That's okay. It doesn't really appear to figure prominently in your life now anyway.

Neither did you, or you wouldn't be a specialist where you are.

I almost flunked con law, but did well in tax, which is odd, since I don't know shit about either.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
We have federal law for a reason--to avoid 50 different requirements. Worse, as a practical matter it will completely disenfranchise some voters. right now a voter in, say, Wyoming has at least some ability to influence a political decision. If states alone control these decisions (even assuming a federal floor), small states will not have any ability to set a standard that any manufacturer will comply with. Instead, they'll have to go along with whatever some other state sets. In other words, it would basically be as it is now--two standards: federal and California, with other states being able to adopt California's standards or stick with the federal standard. Why should the choice be to go with California's legislators or New York's, when you live in any of the other 48 states?

Whoa. In one paragraph, you effectively refuted representative democracy, federalism, and the efficacy of the intellectual marketplace. That has to be some sort of record.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, despite the treaty requiring immediate withdrawal of all US forces to Malibu, can President Spears simply ignore the requirement or pretend that it doesn't exist, and leave elements of the First Marine Expeditionary Force patrolling the rubble of the Au Club's DJ Booth?

Not legally.

I'm going to have to start editing my posts more carefully. (Hi Hank!) I really thought it was very clear that I disagreed with Slave.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

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.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
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.

Didn't Bush unilaterally withdraw us from the ABM treaty back in '01 or '02?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Neither did you, or you wouldn't be a specialist where you are.

I almost flunked con law, but did well in tax, which is odd, since I don't know shit about either.

I realize this may confuse and confound you, but I am a tax specialist because I like it.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Didn't Bush unilaterally withdraw us from the ABM treaty back in '01 or '02?

As I recall, he tried, but Congress and the courts wouldn't let him. I may be wrong, but that's what I remember and I don't really have time to research it right now.

If Hank posts some caustic recitation of the event, we'll know I'm wrong. If he is silent, we can't really say I'm definitely right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Didn't Bush unilaterally withdraw us from the ABM treaty back in '01 or '02?

When the treaty itself provides that the U.S. can pull out, then things are different. The Senate ratified that provision, too. I believe that at least some treaties specify how countries pull out, though our Constitution does not.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I realize this may confuse and confound you, but I am a tax specialist because I like it.

I know this may confuse and confound you, but I was kidding.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Not legally.

I'm going to have to start editing my posts more carefully. (Hi Hank!) I really thought it was very clear that I disagreed with Slave.

S_A_M

Oh, sorry -- I must have misread your post.

But as to your answer -- Aha! So Representative Maddox Jolie-Pitt-Anniston (Free Silver -- Aztlan) shall lead the impeachment forces against President Jamie Lynn Spears after all! Vive le Jolie-Pitt-Anniston!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I know this may confuse and confound you, but I was kidding.

I probably missed your intent because you got me all riled up and feeling murderous on the FB.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I probably missed your intent because you got me all riled up and feeling murderous on the FB.

I'm getting blamed for your little girl crying? WTF?