• 001100 010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think any treaty should by default need approval by legislature for both entering and exiting the treaty, unless the legislature explicitly empowers the president to exit a particular treaty without legislative approval.

    No country would trust the US if treaties could be potentially changed every 4 years by one person.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Treaties specifically require approval in the Senate. It’s in the Constitution.

      A non-corrupt court system would not permit a President to enter or exit a treaty without Senate confirmation.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m surprised all treaties aren’t handled this way. We have such a high bar to approve them for a reason, it seems silly to not have a similarly high bar to leave them.

    • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I do understand why you would want to be able to exit fast. I think it makes sense for the individual country as a safety net in case whatever deal you’ve entered goes south.

      …but having a system in place to ensure that the majority agrees with that decision is important.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Amy Coney Barrett proves that the US legislature can move fast whenever it wants to.

        • TechyDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          And now I’m picturing a Republican Congress and Presidency being voted out by the people, only to have the exiting Congress pass a “We Hereby Exit From All Treaties” bill, signed by the President before the changeover happens. All to leave the incoming Democratic Congress/President with a huge foreign relations mess to clean up.

  • drturtle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 years ago

    It has bipartisan support in the senate, but who knows what the republican-controlled house will do. This bill basically exists to prevent Trump or another republican president from fucking around with U.S. and global security.

    • Igloojoe@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Definitely will stop any republican bought by Russia from trying to dismantle NATO.

      Now whether this bill will actually pass…

        • Neato@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          It’s a bill that unilaterally gives the Legislature additional power at the expense of the Executive. Congress will probably approve it because they’d become more relevant.