@farmerman,
I'm afraid I'm having trouble digesting your response and despite our long association in this forum, I don't want to assume that I have read it as you intended for it to be read. For clarification purposes:
1) You were not suggesting that Obama's Iran deal was a ratified treaty?
2) Your question in this regard was posed simply for information purposes and not intended to bring up another treaty which you believe Trump can't unilaterally dissolve?
3) Your question was rhetorical and intended, in some way, to underscore the argument made by someone else that Trump cannot unilaterally dissolve the missile treaty with Russia?
As for the point made about a president's ability to unilaterally undo a Senate-ratified treaty,there is, by no means, a broad consensus that he or she can not.
You may be surprised to learn that none other than former Democrat Senator, Russ Feingold wrote
Quote:Unfortunately, due to decades of executive aggrandizement and congressional acquiescence — coupled with judicial timidity — the ability to unilaterally withdraw the United States from every last treaty the Senate has ever ratified has been left solely in the hands of President Donald Trump.
Quote:...the current weight of legal opinion holds that President Donald Trump has the power to withdraw the U.S. from this (ratified UN Charter) or any treaty without similar consultation with the legislative branch of government.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/donald-trump-can-unilaterally-withdraw-treaties-because-congress-abdicated-responsibility-ncna870866
Then there is this from Michael D Ramsay writing for the Federalist Society in 2004; relative to President Bush's expressed desire to withdraw from the ABM Treaty with Russia
Quote:This raises an important constitutional issue as to whether the President may terminate a treaty on his own authority, or whether he must seek the approval of Congress (or, perhaps, of the Senate). Although that may appear a close question upon first consideration, a careful reading of the Constitution reveals a clear answer: the President’s constitutional power in foreign affairs includes the power to terminate treaties.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/can-the-president-terminate-the-abm-treaty
You will, no doubt, find opinions that argue the president cannot unilaterally withdraw from a ratified treaty, but it's hardly a clearly settled matter.
President Obama deliberately avoided the treaty process when he forged his deal with Iran because he didn't think he could get the required 2/3rds vote for ratification. There were lawmakers who argued the deal would never be binding on the US because it was not a ratified treaty, but, obviously, there was no effort made to press a
constitutional crisis that might be resolved by the Supreme Court. The deal was made and implementation began without any serious challenge from Congress.
Regardless of whose opinion on this matter is correct, from a practical standpoint. if Trump decides, unilaterally, to withdraw from the missile treaty, the US will do so. Republicans holding both houses of Congress (at least until 1/19) are not at all likely to mount a challenge to his authority, and the Democrat minority's ability to do so on its own (in the unlikely event they would take that route) would be quite difficult and require some novel tactics. It's almost inconceivable that the Supreme Court would instigate a true constitutional crisis by issuing some sort of injunctive relief that ordered the president not to withdraw, and in the still unlikely event that it agreed to hear the matter, by the time it came before them for a decision, the withdrawal would be a done deal.
Citizens and lawmakers can and will have their views on whether or not withdrawal from the treaty is wise, but if the president wants to do it, it will be done, regardless of the views as to whether or not he has the authority to do so.
Arguing that Trump would somehow be abusing his Executive authority would, no doubt, garner media coverage, but it would smack of hypocrisy considering the way past presidents of both parties have dealt with international agreements; particularly when they have to do with national security, and (as Feingold argues) how Congress has for some long time responded.
) the embarrassment of reiterating points made by the target of your attack, or sources he quoted, but I'm not sure you can be embarrassed and, in any case, such a thing would never get between you and a good harangue.