the gentleman reminds us that a treaty is the supreme law of the land, and then says that the President cannot abrogate the law unilaterally without some legislative action. I suggest that the President has followed the law to the letter. The law is in the treaty. The treaty itself provides a mechanism for withdrawing from the treaty: ``Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty. . . . '' How do we exercise our national sovereignty? The gentleman would suggest a plebiscite throughout the country. The very words of the treaty, which are the supreme law of the land, have been observed by the President. So that argument is a nullity. Secondly, do all Members, and I am asking this rhetorically, do all Members concede the Taiwan defense treaty as still valid and that President Carter's termination of it was illegal, and of no force and effect? They have to hold that position if they hold the position they are arguing today. I submit this is not a privilege of the House.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the legality of treaty withdrawal and the Taiwan defense treaty.
Share
More from Henry Hyde
I might note parenthetically that in the motion to recommit, it says ``to provide U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq in a timely manner with the equipment and other resources needed to do their job.'' I also take note that the supplemental 2 months…
I announce my difficulty in opposing my good friends, Mr. Berman and Mrs. Tauscher. They are both very learned in this field. However, this amendment is very similar to Mr. Sherman's amendment and should be defeated for virtually the same…
someone once said brevity is the soul of eloquence. I shall attempt to emulate that by saying we are happy to accept this excellent amendment.
if I may reclaim my time, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), this is a marvelous amendment. The spirit in which it is offered is exemplary, and it is a very difficult thing to oppose it. But I see a problem with it…





