Re: Abrogation Wordings (fwd)

[Doyle Srader <DSRADER@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>]

A follow-up comment on the "amendments to treaties" idea. What about
agreements that Congress thinks are treaties and should be ratified but
the President doesn't? Forwarded by permission.

Doyle Srader
University of Georgia
<706> 548-9938

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:29:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Midn David P Wolynski <m976936@nadn.navy.mil>
To: Doyle Srader <DSRADER@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Abrogation Wordings


I was wondering the same thing about topicality.  In researching the CWC
for the previous topic, I found a letter from Lott to Clinton saying that
he would not allow the CWC to be voted on until Clinton resubmitted the
CFE Treaty as well as the ABM Treaty.  The resubmission was because Lott
(and other Republicans) thought that the re-negotiations that Clinton has
made required Senate approval.  Also, the question arises regarding items
that the Senate regards as a Treaty, but Clinton has not submitted it as
one (for example, the Agreed Framework with North Korea).

Despite this, I'm still for my FSU topic (perhaps I'm a tad biased).

Dave Wolynski
USNA

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Abrogation Wordings
• Next by Date: Web Page
• Prev by thread: J.W. Patterson or anyone who has his address
• Next by thread: Web Page
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page