as I have stated, I don't question the President's legal right to do that. That is not the question. I think the question is, as I have tried to pose it, that the Senate, a body which, under the Constitution, approves or disapproves the ratification of treaties, should have an opportunity, in the case of the ABM Treaty--a treaty of such significance as this one has been and is--the Senate should have an opportunity to debate this. As I have indicated, I think the President should have asked for some advice from the Senate. He does not have to take the advice, but I have seen no evidence of the President seeking advice on this matter. He simply made up his mind to do it and did it.
Cord Byrd: “as I have stated, I don't question the President's legal right to do that. That is not the question. I think the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Senate's role in treaty ratification during a debate on the ABM Treaty.
Share
More from Cord Byrd
If the administration's request for 2008 is funded in full, appropriations for military operations and other war-related activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on terrorism will rise to $188 billion this year and to a…
I oppose the Shelby amendment. In our zeal to protect consumers from egregious banking and lending practices, I fear the Senate is paying too little attention to basic constitutional tenets. The Shelby amendment proposes to create a…
1 year ago, Congress sent the President a war funding supplemental that included clear direction to bring our troops home by December of 2007. The President chose to veto that bill. If he had signed that bill, most of our troops would be…
this week, I was pleased to participate in a celebration of a true American hero, a West Virginia legend, and a friend, Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles, the last surviving American veteran of World War I. His has always been a life of…





