U.S. Constitution requires simple majority of both Houses to approve treaties?

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
The actual U.S. Constitution limits approval of treaties to only the Senate and requires 2/3's approval.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2

Article II, Section 2:

' . . He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; . '
Click to expand...

But what if this was different?

One big change, in 1919 and the early '20 Congress may have a better chance to approve U.S. membership in the League of Nations and that might make a difference to prevent the Second World War.

Any other big and/or interesting changes, either positive or negative?
 

Brady Kj

I suppose there would have been more treaties. This is based on the assumptions that US politicians tend to be split into two nearly equally-sized camps in both houses, and the parties like to part on most issues, so having two thirds of one house favor something is very rare, but a simple majority of both houses happens on occasion. However, it would take much longer for treaties to pass.

If I am mistaken on any of those points, I hope somebody will point that out to me.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
It might sometimes take longer. If it was important enough, it wouldn't. The House and Senate could hold hearings and debate and discussion at roughly the same time.
 

Deleted member 67076

606jae said:
swing one vote in the senate and pass the house we would have santa domingo territory.
Click to expand...
The butterflies from this change in the US Constitution would butterfly any chance of even getting the chance to annex.
 

mtg999

Just a question: What is the specific reason why the 2/3rd majority of (only) the Senate rule was included the US Constitution in the first place? Is this used in other federations?

Was it done to prevent the Federal government from using its treaty-making powers to undermine state powers? I'm thinking how on more than one occasion the Australian federal government has overruled state policies which are in violation of treaty obligations.

I can see how this would be a potential concern for state's rights advocates nowadays, with UN treaties on a variety of non-military/diplomatic issues, but this surely couldn't have been a concern in the late 18th century?
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
I think the assumption is that requiring a supermajority will lead to greater discussion and greater thoughtfulness. In reality, it's often just leads to an ideological minority being intransigent.
 

ManintheField

Banned
mtg999 said:
Just a question: What is the specific reason why the 2/3rd majority of (only) the Senate rule was included the US Constitution in the first place? Is this used in other federations?

Was it done to prevent the Federal government from using its treaty-making powers to undermine state powers? I'm thinking how on more than one occasion the Australian federal government has overruled state policies which are in violation of treaty obligations.

I can see how this would be a potential concern for state's rights advocates nowadays, with UN treaties on a variety of non-military/diplomatic issues, but this surely couldn't have been a concern in the late 18th century?
Click to expand...

It was important to the South and (then) West, with many delegates to the Convention being concerned that an increasing majority of Northern politicians would sell their interests up the river -- literally, in the sense of agreeing to a treaty with the Spanish (the owners of New Orleans at the time) to close American trade down the Mississippi in return for commercial concessions on the part of the Spanish. At the time the Northeast was entirely Atlantic oriented, this being long before the Erie Canal, and there was some degree of fear of Western development because of the loss of power it entailed to their own states and societies.

So Southern delegates found it important to ensure commercial treaties (and then just treaties in general) required a supermajority's assent.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
ManintheField said:
It was important to the South and (then) West, with many delegates to the Convention being concerned that an increasing majority of Northern politicians would sell their interests up the river -- literally, in the sense of agreeing to a treaty with the Spanish (the owners of New Orleans at the time) to close American trade down the Mississippi in return for commercial concessions on the part of the Spanish.
Click to expand...
There may be a solution, or there may not be. In either case, this is a substantial challenge.

And to add to this, back in the 1790s and early 1800s tariffs were the major source of revenue for the federal government.
 

Brady Kj

mtg999 said:
Just a question: What is the specific reason why the 2/3rd majority of (only) the Senate rule was included the US Constitution in the first place? Is this used in other federations?

Was it done to prevent the Federal government from using its treaty-making powers to undermine state powers? I'm thinking how on more than one occasion the Australian federal government has overruled state policies which are in violation of treaty obligations.

I can see how this would be a potential concern for state's rights advocates nowadays, with UN treaties on a variety of non-military/diplomatic issues, but this surely couldn't have been a concern in the late 18th century?
Click to expand...
As for why it's just the senate, I imagine it's because some of the founders didn't trust the people or their representatives enough to give that much power to the House of Representatives, and because the small states didn't trust the large states enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top