Timeline for Could the President, Senate, and a foreign country circumvent the House to pass a law?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2022 at 21:43 | comment | added | ohwilleke | wrt: "Other lower courts have suggested that treaty provisions that purport to create criminal liability or raise revenue must be deemed non-self-executing because those powers are the exclusive prerogative of Congress." I'd disagree. Appropriations, yeah, probably can't do that by treaty. Probably can't impeach other. But, otherwise, for general purpose laws, no dice. There was criminal liability created by the treaty in Missouri v. Holland, and treaties involving taxation effects are common. | |
| Jun 15, 2022 at 21:43 | history | edited | George White | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Jun 15, 2022 at 21:39 | comment | added | ohwilleke | All the treaty has to do to avoid this problem is say "Section 1: This is a self-executing treaty which shall take effect immediately without further domestic legislation upon being ratified." In the scenario of the question, this is exactly what it would do. | |
| Jun 15, 2022 at 21:31 | comment | added | George White | The double negative confuses me - are you saying clever drafting can get around the issues this paper mentions? | |
| Jun 15, 2022 at 20:28 | comment | added | ohwilleke | The fact that a treaty doesn't have to be self-executing isn't really that relevant to a case like the OP when the people involved in enacting it set out in the first place with an intent to make it self-executing. | |
| Jun 15, 2022 at 19:40 | history | answered | George White | CC BY-SA 4.0 |