Medellin: May the President decide that the U.S. will violate a Treaty?

[DavidEBernstein at aol.com]

Questions like this support those who are very hesitant about getting the 
U.S. involved in international treaties to begin with.  The idea that some idiot 
president and sixty senators could bind the U.S. in perpituity to anything 
strikes me as both sheer lunacy, and contrary to the underlying principles of our 
constitution: if it takes extraordinary means to amend the Constitution and 
bind "We the People" to new obligations to its own government (or vice versa), 
how could it take only one president and sixty senators to bind the U.S. to 
new obligations to a world government (or governing body) in which U.S. citizens 
have only a small say?


In a message dated 3/31/2005 9:01:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
marty.lederman at comcast.net writes:
(i) It’s not clear (is it?) that the President, or even the President and 
Senate acting together (and without the House), have the constitutional authority 
to terminate or abrogate treaties where treaty obligations themselves 
prohibit such termination;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050331/60b61197/attachment.htm