Does POTUS have the power to unilaterally leave NAFTA etc?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes. NAFTA has the same clause as the ABM treaty did allowing withdrawal upon six months notice.

[ag]

Yes. NAFTA has the same clause as the ABM treaty did allowing withdrawal upon six months notice.

The question is not whether the US can withdraw (it can), but whether the executve can withdraw without congressional action. One would have to look into the legislation enacting the agreement.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes. NAFTA has the same clause as the ABM treaty did allowing withdrawal upon six months notice.

The question is not whether the US can withdraw (it can), but whether the executve can withdraw without congressional action. One would have to look into the legislation enacting the agreement.

While any provisions in U.S. law that were implemented in conjunction with the adoption of NAFTA but not dependent upon other countries joining us in NAFTA would remain, the principal is well established in U.S. law that the executive has sole responsibility for deciding if we withdraw from a treaty. That's why I specifically mentioned the ABM treaty, as Bush withdrew the U.S. from it without submitting that withdrawal to Congress for approval.

[politicallefty]

That is the current understanding of the law and the Constitution. In Goldwater v. Carter, the Supreme Court dismissed the issue as a political question, but apparently only because Congress did not protest.

The Constitution appears to be silent on the issue, so I don't know what that means necessarily. I don't think the President should have the ability to withdraw from a treaty that is duly ratified by the Senate. If I were on the Supreme Court, I would not rule for the President in having that unilateral power. However, there must be a means through which the United States can withdraw from a treaty. I think that unless Congress otherwise passed a law, it would require an Act of Congress to rescind a treaty (in other words, passing a law specifically for that purpose).

[ag]

Yes. NAFTA has the same clause as the ABM treaty did allowing withdrawal upon six months notice.

The question is not whether the US can withdraw (it can), but whether the executve can withdraw without congressional action. One would have to look into the legislation enacting the agreement.

While any provisions in U.S. law that were implemented in conjunction with the adoption of NAFTA but not dependent upon other countries joining us in NAFTA would remain, the principal is well established in U.S. law that the executive has sole responsibility for deciding if we withdraw from a treaty. That's why I specifically mentioned the ABM treaty, as Bush withdrew the U.S. from it without submitting that withdrawal to Congress for approval.

Unlike ABM treaty, NAFTA is not a treaty by US law. It is a congressional-executive agreement, and it was implemented through regular legislation, not through ratification by the Senate (in fact, only 61 senators voted in favour, which would have not been sufficient for a ratification - but the House also approved, which would have been unnecessary for a treaty). In that sense, it would appear (though, of course, I am not a lawyer), that every single provision of NAFTA is part of the US law. The questions is, whether the implementing legislation left it up to the executive to decide on the withdrawal - and this is what I do not know.

[ag]

That is the current understanding of the law and the Constitution. In Goldwater v. Carter, the Supreme Court dismissed the issue as a political question, but apparently only because Congress did not protest.

The Constitution appears to be silent on the issue, so I don't know what that means necessarily. I don't think the President should have the ability to withdraw from a treaty that is duly ratified by the Senate. If I were on the Supreme Court, I would not rule for the President in having that unilateral power. However, there must be a means through which the United States can withdraw from a treaty. I think that unless Congress otherwise passed a law, it would require an Act of Congress to rescind a treaty (in other words, passing a law specifically for that purpose).

NAFTA is not a treaty by US law, so this is irrelevant.

[politicallefty]

NAFTA is not a treaty by US law, so this is irrelevant.

You may be right when it comes to NAFTA. I was taking the question to be one that encompassed treaties and executive agreements as a whole. Yes, considering the fact that NAFTA was passed via an Act of Congress, it would certainly require an Act of Congress to pull out of the agreement.

On the topic of the ABM Treaty, I do not think GWB had any authority whatsoever to remove the United States from its provisions. The idea that a President can change all previous treaties duly ratified by the Senate unilaterally just seems absurd to me.

[I’m not Stu]

NAFTA was passed by congress. The president doesn't have the power to unilaterally withdraw.