Timeline for What are arguments for and against a bill "To end membership of the United States in the United Nations."
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4 at 18:49 | comment | added | wrod | @DavidHammen The Homeland Security Act is not a foreign policy initiative. It creates tools for the executive, but they are executive branch's tools to use. re:"While the House plays no role in the formation of treaties." If you mean that it is the diplomats and the lawyers who draft it, that's (of course) irrelevant. They are the plumbers of the process. The signing (or not) of a treaty begins with the President's signature. If a President elects to not sign a treaty, there is no way to compel him. So the drafters' actions have no force of law. Any actual treaty termination started in HoR? | |
| Mar 3 at 12:53 | comment | added | David Hammen | @wrod The Homeland Security Act originated in the House of Representatives, with obvious foreign policy impacts. While the House plays no role in the formation of treaties, terminating a treaty can originate in the House. Declaration of war must come from Congress and can originate in the House. | |
| Feb 5 at 2:29 | comment | added | wrod | @F1Krazy the bill was showboating. I don't think there is 1 instance in the history of the US when such an action succeeded because it would be blatantly unconstitutional. So its not a solid premise for a question. I could also argue that the question itself is asking for opinions, but I guess it can be answered very narrowly if one is to limit themselves just to known facts. But, in my estimate, such a narrow answer would likely attract downvotes from all the activists on the site. But that, too, is just an opinion; one I am not willing to test. | |
| Feb 4 at 17:30 | comment | added | F1Krazy | So you're saying that there are no advantages or disadvantages to the bill, because it's non-binding? | |
| Feb 4 at 15:36 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Feb 4 at 22:02 | |||||
| Feb 4 at 15:30 | comment | added | Joe W | Sorry but there is nothing to continue in chat. | |
| Feb 4 at 14:10 | comment | added | wrod | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Feb 3 at 23:42 | comment | added | wrod | @JoeW no kidding! | |
| Feb 3 at 23:12 | comment | added | Joe W | What evidence do you have to back up the claim that the house cannot pass a bill dealing with foreign policy and not send it on to the senate to pass? If you are going to answer a 7 year old question you should provide sources to back up your claims. Besides this question isn’t asking if they can do this but the arguments for and against doing it. | |
| Feb 3 at 23:04 | comment | added | wrod | @JoeW no, you can't challenge every item on process, at least not credibly. But when a house passes a bill initiating a foreign policy change, it can be challenged on process grounds because the House has no blanket authority to conduct foreign policy. | |
| Feb 3 at 22:46 | comment | added | Joe W | You mean like every other item that passes the house? I don't think anyone was suggesting that the house could vote to remove the US from the UN on their own. If it would have passed the house, the senate and gotten signed by the president (or had the veto overridden) it would have removed the US from the UN. | |
| Feb 3 at 22:13 | comment | added | wrod | @JoeW but it has no power in law without the Senate passage. In any case, it could be challenged (in court) on process because the House has no authority to initiate such sweeping diplomacy questions. | |
| Feb 3 at 14:53 | comment | added | Joe W | It does have the power to pass a bill that would be sent to the senate and if passed there sent to the president to sign into law or veto. | |
| Feb 3 at 12:12 | history | edited | wrod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Feb 3 at 3:52 | history | answered | wrod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |