TexasCHLforum.com

Jaguar wrote:Well, I did reply to this issue in the other thread, but allow me to repeat myself.

Thanks for the response! I found your original after looking further. For future reference, you can link directly to your response (instead of just to the thread itself) by clicking on the link at the top of your reply...it will link to it like this: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 51#p856682

Thanks again...your response helped me understand!

Teamless wrote:If I remember my history lessons of 25+ years ago, the Senate has to approve all treaties, which if by approval it means to vote yea or nay on it, thats probably all they need to do.
If the Senate votes nay, then the treaty is not official and has no power.

I understand that the Senate has the authority to approve / reject treaties. This doesn't answer any of my questions. Let me rephrase:

- Once the Secretary of State signs a treaty, does it have to go to the Senate for a vote, or can it stay forever in "limbo" as signed but not ratified? The reason for this question (hence my second question) is since the administration now knows that the Senate will not approve it, can they simply not send it to them so that the administration can enforce the treaty via executive action?

- If the treaty cannot stay in a "limbo" state forever and has to go to the Senate for a vote, and the Senate rejects the treaty, is that rejection binding on the administration so that it is illegal for them to try to enforce the treaty anyway?

Jaguar wrote:Thread already running here: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=69251" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, similar thread, but this one is different and I have very specific questions.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/ ... p=HPBucket

I'm a little ignorant on these kinds of treaties so here's my questions:

- Once the treaty is signed, is it forced to go to the Senate for a vote?
- If not, could the administration simply not send it to the Senate for a vote, therefore allowing them to continue to adhere to the "spirit of the treaty" via executive orders?
- If the treaty goes to the Senate for a vote and it is rejected, is the administration restricted from adhering to the "spirit of the treaty" via executive orders?