# Question re Withdrawing from Treaties **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 2, 2019, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832 "2019-02-02T14:02:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/21 "2019-02-02T22:29:24Z")
One thing we should understand about this - exexutive power has been flowing more and ,ore to the president because the congress has discovered that it’s too their advantage to talk a big game but not actually do something. They are perfectly happy to devolve power to the executive branch and the administrative state, because that way they can always evade blame when something doesn’t work. If you want to talk about actual constitutional responsibilities, how about the responsibility for producing an actual budget each year? That responsibility is explicitly called out in the constitution, but it’s one Congress routinely evades, leading to a government run by continuing resolutions, making it harder for everyone connected with government to plan their businesses or their spending and saving. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/22 "2019-02-02T22:29:47Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Right , so that’s why it’s not the courts power… > What makes it the president’s? > We just assume that since the Constitution doesn’t assign it, it’s the presidents ? > > Since only your perception of what that means is relevant Look, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, I would urge you not to portray that your opinion constitutes a fact for the purposes of ths forum. Again: it isn’t a fully resolved question. Some may believe that the Senate has a dormant power to consider a Presidential request to withdraw from a treaty. Some may believe this is an unconstitutional power grab that undermines the role of the country’s top diplomat. That’s all fine. The historical record indicates that there’s been all sorts of withdrawals from treaties: quite a few of them accomplished with both the legislative and executive branches weighing in. So why isn’t that the right way, I ask you? The answer is, we don’t know for sure. And it won’t become clear until the legislative branch asserts itself to seek to prohibit a solely executive withdrawal, which is not a rediculous idea. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/23 "2019-02-02T22:31:07Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If you want to talk about actual constitutional responsibilities, how about the responsibility for producing an actual budget each year? That responsibility is explicitly called out in the constitution, but it’s one Congress routinely evades, leading to a government run by continuing resolutions, making it harder for everyone connected with government to plan their businesses or their spending and saving. Jesus, no, there is no such constitutional requirement. This is a massive misunderstanding of Congress’ fiscal powers. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/24 "2019-02-02T22:39:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Look, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, I would urge you not to portray that your opinion constitutes a fact for the purposes of ths forum. > > Again: it isn’t a fully resolved question. Some may believe that the Senate has a dormant power to consider a Presidential request to withdraw from a treaty. Some may believe this is an unconstitutional power grab that undermines the role of the country’s top diplomat. That’s all fine. > > The historical record indicates that there’s been all sorts of withdrawals from treaties: quite a few of them accomplished with both the legislative and executive branches weighing in. So why isn’t that the right way, I ask you? > > The answer is, we don’t know for sure. And it won’t become clear until the legislative branch asserts itself to seek to prohibit a solely executive withdrawal, which is not a rediculous idea. Exactly And makes sense to me …is not a portrayal of fact. Otherwise I would have insisted that is the way it is. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/25 "2019-02-02T22:43:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Jesus, no, there is no such constitutional requirement. This is a massive misunderstanding of Congress’ fiscal powers. Thank you for that. I had seen it described as a constitutional requirement, supposedly under Article 1, that I never bothered to check. I just did, and it looks like that was wrong. It looks like most of the rules around the budgetary process came in partly i 1921, then again in 1974 under the Budgetary Control Act. So ignorance fought. Thank you. However, it still looks like the process set into law in 1974 is largely broken. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/26 "2019-02-02T22:48:04Z")
**[Moderating]** > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > President Obama got us into an “executive agreement” with the terrorist regime in Iran. On his own. > > Maybe President Trump can call the withdrawal from the INF an “executive disagreement”. :rolleyes: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And because Obama’s treaty was an ‘executive agreement’, the next executive was fully free to ignore it - which he did, Which is why it was irresponsible to do foreign policy that way to begin with. Treaties are supposed to provide stability, not chaos. I suspect the Iranians went along with it because they got a lot up-front in the form of pallettes of cash. > > Treaties are only useful when both sides abide by them. Otherwise, they are just a strategic weapon to be foisted on suckers. Russia was in clear violation of the ABM treaty when Bush withdrew, and they are in clear violation of this treaty. Trump is completely correct to withdraw. > > Besides, this must be what Putin wants, since Trump is his puppet, right? In case the two of you didn’t notice, this is General Questions, and there’s a factual answer we’re trying to find here. Some other posters have done good work in finding that answer. Politicking does not help, and is not appropriate for this forum. This is an official Warning for both of you. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/27 "2019-02-02T22:51:21Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > However, it still looks like the process set into law in 1974 is largely broken. Yes, that system is broken. But it has been functionally replaced by the Budget Control Act and the biennial amendments to it. One could say dysfunctionally replaced and I wouldn’t argue. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/28 "2019-02-02T23:00:58Z")
Exclaiming " that’s not how it works" well I’d say that’s potraying your opinion as fact. Since admittedly it’s not clear ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/29 "2019-02-03T00:16:09Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Exclaiming " that’s not how it works" well I’d say that’s potraying your opinion as fact. > > Since admittedly it’s not clear I said that another poster’s assertion that the text of the treaty carried implications for the constitutional processes of state parties is not how it works. That is a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/30 "2019-02-03T03:21:26Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Did Trump give six months notice? Yes, the official announcement that was made yesterday (which went into effect today) was the start of the six month withdrawal period. In response, Russia officially announced that it was also beginning its six month withdrawal period today. So at this point, the treaty will cease to be in effect on August 2 unless both countries agreed to rescind their withdrawals. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/31 "2019-02-03T07:36:17Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/32 "2019-02-03T15:25:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It’s not a fully resolved question. In Goldwater v Carter, courts found that the separation of powers issues that arise from foreign relations are political questions that the courts should stay out of. > > From time to time, there are noises about Congress enacting a law to require some sort of approval for us getting out of a treaty. Were that to pass, I would think that courts would be loathe to strike that down. > > As a counterpoint to your assumption that the Consitution implicitly requires advice and consent to exit a treaty, a fan of executive power may argue that a similar provision for appointment of officers of the United Statea also requires advice and consent, but the President is free to fire such officers without the Senate’s consent unless there’s a law limiting the President’s power to do so (eg, judges, “for good cause,” etc) It is worth mentioning that Andrew Johnson was impeached on exactly this point. Congress had passed and overridden a veto of a law making it illegal for the president to fire a cabinet officer without the agreement of the senate (Tenure of Office act) and he ignored it and was impeached for that. The failure to convict made the act a dead letter and most constitutional scholars seem to feel it was not constitutional. I don’t see the difference between that and withdrawing from a treaty. Of course, had Johnson been convicted, the entire subsequent history would have been different. Of course the real issue in that situation was that Johnson was a southern Democrat who resisted reconstruction and wanted the south readmitted unconditionally. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832/33 "2019-02-03T19:02:52Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > It is worth mentioning that Andrew Johnson was impeached on exactly this point. Congress had passed and overridden a veto of a law making it illegal for the president to fire a cabinet officer without the agreement of the senate (Tenure of Office act) and he ignored it and was impeached for that. The failure to convict made the act a dead letter and most constitutional scholars seem to feel it was not constitutional. I don’t see the difference between that and withdrawing from a treaty. Of course, had Johnson been convicted, the entire subsequent history would have been different. My understanding was that there was a legal technicality involved. Some argued that the Tenure of Office Act shouldn’t have applied because it only bound the President who appointed the cabinet members. Edwin Stanton (the Secretary of War that Johnson fired) had been appointed by Lincoln. Some people argue that Lincoln’s cabinet should have been considered automatically disbanded when Lincoln died (or would have been if he had left office at the end of his term) and that Johnson was free to nominate new member to what was now his cabinet, the same way that any incoming President was free to replace the previous President’s cabinet. > [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Of course the real issue in that situation was that Johnson was a southern Democrat who resisted reconstruction and wanted the south readmitted unconditionally. I think it’s more accurate to say Johnson also favored reconstruction but had a different idea of what direction it should go in. Both Johnson and the Republicans in Congress wanted to remove the pre-war Southern political leadership (the plantation class) from power. But Johnson wanted to put poor and working-class whites in power and keep black people out of power. The Republicans wanted to include black people in the new power structure and wanted to restrict people who had fought against the United States from taking power (which would have included most poor and working-class white Southerners). Putting aside the moral issues, there were practical partisan concerns. Both sides knew that the poor and working-class whites were likely to vote Democratic and the blacks were likely to vote Republican. So both sides were trying to build up their own base while keeping the other side’s base disenfranchised. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-re-withdrawing-from-treaties/828832.md?page=1)