Entrenching a future treaty?

[Franklin, David]

Do list members see any constitutional problem with a statute that authorizes the Executive Branch to negotiate a treaty and purports to require a two-thirds majority to prevent the resulting treaty from going into effect?  Seems an unusual twist on the usual entrenchment debate.
 
>From last week's LA Times:
 
"Lawmakers have had difficulty with the proposed legislation from the beginning. Many have complained that neither Congress nor executive branch proliferation experts were adequately consulted. They believe the administration hoped to rush congressional approval through to avoid lengthy scrutiny that would reveal the deal's drawbacks.

Some have also objected that the bill is designed to reduce congressional influence over the ultimate U.S.-India pact.

The measure needs only a majority vote for approval, but it includes a provision saying the subsequent treaty could be blocked only by a two-thirds vote of Congress."

Full link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usindia3jun03,0,5223741.story?coll=la-home-headlines


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060607/07bfafea/attachment.html