Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

"I'm just a treaty, yes I'm only a treaty....."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 10:57 PM
Original message
"I'm just a treaty, yes I'm only a treaty....."
How a Treaty Moves Through the Senate
April 9, 2010 - by Donny Shaw

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President makes treaties, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Approval of a treaty requires a supermajority of two-thirds of the senators present (assuming all 100 senators are present, 67 votes are required for approval).

After signature of the New START Treaty on April 8, the U.S. and Russian negotiators will complete their work on several technical annexes. Only then will the President be able to submit the treaty to the Senate (expected to be later this spring). In addition to the text of the treaty, protocol and annexes, the President will submit to the Senate a detailed analysis of the treaty.

The treaty will be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which under the Senate rules has exclusive jurisdiction over treaties. If past practice on major arms control treaties is a guide, the Foreign Relations Committee will likely conduct several hearings on the New START Treaty. The Committee held four hearings on the last such treaty, the Moscow Treaty, in 2002.

Similarly, past practice suggests that other Senate committees, such as the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, may also conduct hearings and report their views to the Foreign Relations Committee, but the treaty would not be formally referred to those committees.

Once the Foreign Relations Committee has completed its review of the treaty, it would draft its recommendations for a resolution of advice and consent, which is the document by which the Senate approves treaties, and vote in a formal markup session. Then it would file a detailed report with the Senate analyzing the treaty and the Committees findings resulting from its review.

Once the Committee reports the treaty to the Senate, it is placed on the Senates Executive Calendar. Unlike bills, the decision of the Senate to begin consideration of a treaty (the motion to proceed) is not subject to a filibuster. The Senate typically takes at least two or three days to consider a major treaty, and to vote on amendments to the resolution of advice and consent.

If approved, the treaty is then returned to the President, for the formal act of ratification. Specifically, he will sign an instrument of ratification.

The treaty must also be approved by the Russian parliament, or Duma. If both the Senate and the Duma approve the New START Treaty, it will enter into force on the date that the United States and Russia exchange the instruments of ratification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. The US should start honoring existing treaties rather than cranking out new ones.
I mean hey, I like the idea of a good treaty with Russia. Just sayin', I've got some claims in Mississippi that are mine "as long as the grass shall grow and the sun rises" is all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-10 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Can you name even one single treaty the US has honored?
In its entire history? Just one? I can't. I wonder why other nations bother signing deals with us; they must KNOW they're just gonna get screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-10 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'm sure there's like, at least one
Of course, many DU'ers want to bomb the fuck out of a country over the propaganda that said country might be thinking about breaking a treaty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Just as this says, Kerry, as chair of SFRC says there will be speedy hearings
WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) issued a statement following the signing of a new START treaty by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:

Todays signing of the START treaty strengthens our security while affirming the vital role the nuclear arsenal plays in our nations defense. I will work closely with Senator Lugar and our colleagues to see that this historic treaty is ratified this year.

The White House has indicated that the full treaty will be completed and submitted to the Senate in early May. I plan to begin hearings on the treaty in the coming weeks, and then report a proposed resolution of advice and consent to ratification out of the Foreign Relations Committee for approval by the full Senate as soon as possible.

The Senate has a long history of approving strategic arms control treaties by overwhelming margins and I am confident we will renew that spirit of cooperation and bipartisan tradition on arms control and national security to approve ratification of this vital treaty. This is too important to delay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. Seems easier to declare war. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 22nd 2024, 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC