Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:56 AM Jul 2018

DU Constitutional Lawyers

Can a president abrogate an existing treaty without the approval of Congress ?

I know the Senate has to approve a treaty by a 2/3 vote but does the Senate also have to approve abrogating one.

I found this nugget:

Article 10 of the treaty provided that either Party could terminate it one year after notice had been given to the other Party. Accordingly, the treaty came to an end on 1 January 1980, one year after the United States established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China on 1 January 1979.

The authority for President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally annul a treaty, in this case the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, was the topic of the Supreme Court case Goldwater v. Carter in which the court declined to rule on the legality of this action, given the political nature rather than judicial nature of the case, thereby allowing it to proceed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-American_Mutual_Defense_Treaty


2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DU Constitutional Lawyers (Original Post) DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2018 OP
Watch Laurence Tribe's twitter account. I'm betting he will comment on this. n/t hlthe2b Jul 2018 #1
Interesting-- it looks like the SC simply punted... TreasonousBastard Jul 2018 #2

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
2. Interesting-- it looks like the SC simply punted...
Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:35 AM
Jul 2018

They claim that Congress and the President have to come to an impasse before the Court gets involved, but it seems like the Senate suing the President because he didn't listen to it is as impasse as it gets.

It looks like it was just certain Senate members suing, not the whole Senate, which might have made a difference.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»DU Constitutional Lawyers