Obama will give you your 10 by April Fool’s Day…….guaranteed.

@SJE: You are mistaken. I am referring to the president’s plenary authority to negotiate with other states on behalf of the United States, provided in Art. II, § 3 of the Constitution. The legislature has no formal role in that process, other than in appropriations and the Senate’s advice and consent role provided in Art. II, § 2. I don’t think anyone seriously disputes the President’s authority in that regard. See http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/34-conduct-of-foreign-relations.html for a discussion. Even when operating in that arena, the President is limited by the Constitution and other laws of the United States.

As far as I know, every treaty ratified by the Senate becomes part of US law. Therefore, the President is bound by law to follow them and cannot, unilaterally, decide that the treaty is no longer valid. This must be done by the Senate and approved by the President, just the way that the treaty was ratified. It is part of our checks and balances and keeps both in check.

By way of analogy, cabinet secretaries (like treaties) are subject to the approval of the Senate, and all of them serve at the pleasure of the president. Now, the treaty power requires approval of 2/3 of the Senate, so there is a difference that might justify different treatment, but given the plenary nature of the President’s power in international affairs, I would argue that the difference is not sufficient to require the President to acquiesce to treaties that he believes are no longer in the best interests of the nation.

Of course, if a treaty is not self-executing and the congress has enacted legislation (whether signed by the president or effected after overriding a veto) giving effect to a treaty, then the president is without authority to disregard the law, and the power to abrogate treaties is meaningless.

I get the feeling that the Two Bobs are probably John Bolton fans, as well.

/both no-talent ass clowns