On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:31:39 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 12:55:15PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On 23 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:03:16AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > I believe that you are correct. Becoming a signatory is an executive > > > branch function (usually some official in the state department, or the > > > secretary of state) is authorized to do this. However, ratification > > > is a legislative (specifically, the senate) function. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -Roberto > > > > > > > Technically, the president ratifies a treaty after it receives > > the consent of 2/3 or the senate. Or, he can still choose not to > > ratify it (http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh10.htm). I just now > > discovered that myself. > > > Oh wow. I guess it makes sense, though, since the executive does retain > veto power. However, since normally something needs a simple majority > and 2/3 majority only to override a veto, I wonder what would happen in > the case you describe. That is, the senate votes 2/3 to ratify the > treaty, but the president vetoes. I wonder if there is a provision to > override the veto then. It's not a veto issue; the constitution (Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2) states: He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; So the power is his, although he needs the 'advice and consent' of the Senate; if he's not interested, there's no treaty. I don't think there's any possibility of veto. Celejar
