ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n461

Internet Message Format | 2001-08-29 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #461
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Thursday, August 30 2001     Volume 01 : Number 461




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:41:15 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Action Alert: Yucca Mountain site characterization hearingsshould be canceled!

>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2
>Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:13:30 -0400
>From: "Lisa Gue" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Action Alert: Yucca Mountain site characterization hearings
>        should be canceled!
>To: [e-mail]
>X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
>* Apologies for cross-posting. *
>* Please circulate widely! *
>* For more information see media alert below. *
>
>DOE should discontinue Yucca Mountain site recommendation activities and
cancel the September hearings!
>
>Please call Robert Card, Department of Energy Undersecretary for Energy,
Science, and Environment at [phone].  Leave a message if it's after
hours.
>
>Talking point suggestions:
>
>-The DOE should not be proceeding with hearings on the proposed Yucca
Mountain
nuclear waste repository at this time, since the agency lacks the required
basis for a site recommendation (see media alert below).
>
>-The DOE's short-notice scheduling of the Yucca Mountain site recommendation
hearings in Nevada is unacceptable!
>
>-The DOE's incompetence in scheduling these hearings further discredits the
ill-conceived proposal to establish a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada.
>
>
>
>KANGAROO COURT COUNTDOWN ALERT
>
>Aug.29, 2001
>Contact: Lisa Gue [phone]
>
>Confusion Reigns; Suncoast Casino Sends DOE Packing
>
>Seven Days to Yucca Mountain Hearing in Las Vegas
>
>NOTE: The U.S. Department of Energy is holding a Sept. 5 hearing in Las Vegas
on the government's intention to establish a high-level nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Public Citizen will issue "Kangaroo
Court Countdown Alerts" each day until the hearing.  For more information
about
Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste, visit www.citizen.org/cmep.
>
>With just one week remaining until the Department of Energy's (DOE) scheduled
Yucca Mountain site recommendation hearing in Las Vegas, the DOE is looking
for
a venue to hold the event. Although the DOE's  Web site continues to list the
Suncoast Casino as the location for a Sept. 5 hearing, the casino has declined
to host the event. It is unclear where the DOE will try to hold the
controversial hearing; the agency has not said it will cancel or reschedule
it.

>
>Also on Wednesday, Public Citizen sent a letter to Energy Secretary Spencer
Abraham urging the department to cancel the agency's three September hearings
in Nevada, all of which were called on short notice, until the agency
addresses
outstanding technical and regulatory issues and provides the public with more
notice. The letter is available at
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/RAGE/radwaste/DOESRhearings.htm
>
>"Clearly, the Department of Energy lacks a basis for consideration of site
recommendation at this time," wrote Wenonah Hauter, director of Public
Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.  "To prematurely hold
hearings now makes a mockery of the process for public participation mandated
by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and dangerously undermines public
confidence in
the DOE as a fair and unbiased arbiter of the Yucca Mountain repository
proposal."
>
>The DOE's close-minded determination to plow forward with site recommendation
hearings at the expense of meaningful public participation is
characteristic of
the agency's conduct surrounding the Yucca Mountain project, which has been
marred by contractor scandals and governmental investigations. The DOE now
appears to be more concerned with sidestepping widespread public dissent than
with the integrity of its process for evaluating the Yucca Mountain nuclear
dump proposal.
>
>The Suncoast Casino's decision to deny the DOE access to hold the hearing
indicates the extent of public opposition to the Yucca Mountain repository
proposal and the DOE's highly flawed process. The Las Vegas Chamber of
Commerce, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors, and the Nevada Resort
Association have passed resolutions opposing the storage of nuclear waste in
Nevada.
>###
>
>Lisa Gue
>Policy Analyst
>Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program
>215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
>Washington, DC  20003
>ph: [phone]; fax: [phone]
>www.citizen.org/cmep
>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:20:04 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Yucca hearings, premature and flawed

>
> X-Sender: [e-mail]
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:02:49 -0400
> To: (Recipient list suppressed)
> From: Rosemary & Sal / Citizens Awareness Network
> Subject: Yucca hearings, premature and flawed
> To: [e-mail]
> X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> Sender: [e-mail]
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09/990901/11:28 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
> X-UIDL: ;E1"!V%c"!dM9"!_oa"!
>
> Howdy y'all,
>          The Sept. 5th hearing will no longer be held at the Suncoast
because
> of political pressure.  The new place and time is yet to be decided.  Look
> out for further details.
>
> Kalynda
>
>
> Wednesday, August 29, 2001
> Las Vegas Review-Journal
> Yucca hearings to be televised
> Nevada officials' angry demands met
> By KEITH ROGERS
> REVIEW-JOURNAL
>
> With their confidence in "sound science" all but evaporated, Nevada
> officials have fired off a flurry of letters that call for televising next
> month's Yucca Mountain hearings and that set the stage for the state to
> file another lawsuit over federal plans to bury nuclear waste there.
> "I request that you provide video conferencing at the Sept. 5 public
> hearing," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote in a letter Tuesday to Energy
> Secretary Spencer Abraham.
> "Remote video sites should be provided around the State of Nevada for
> interested members of the public, local governments, and other affected
> parties to participate in the hearing and to comment on this very important
> decision which impacts all citizens of the state," Reid's letter said.
> Three hearings are scheduled to field comments on the recently released
> Yucca Mountain Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation and related federal
> documents.
> The first one is Sept. 5 in Las Vegas.
> Late Tuesday, an Energy Department spokesman said the agency would grant
> Reid's request and go beyond what the senator asked by providing live, Web
> camera coverage on the Internet.
> "We are going to do videoconferencing in Reno, Elko and Carson City and
> we're also going to try to do the Web cam," said Yucca Mountain Project
> spokesman Allen Benson.
> Meanwhile, State Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux has written the
> Energy Department's waste-manage- ment head, Lake Barrett, arguing that the
> public participation process is flawed. The evaluation of the Yucca
> Mountain site should be conducted under existing guidelines, not ones that
> haven't been finalized, he said.
> The Energy Department in 1996 proposed amendments to make the siting
> process consistent with current scientific knowledge in assessing how the
> repository would perform, according to the site evaluation document.
> But Loux's letter argued that "changing regulations for the Yucca Mountain
> site at the eleventh hour not only violates the public trust, but it also
> shows the lengths to which the department is prepared to go in attempting
> to salvage a project that, under any truly objective and scientific
> criteria, would have long since been abandoned."
> "They're denying the public meaningful opportunity to participate," Loux
> said in a telephone interview from Carson City. He said under existing
> guidelines the site would be disqualified.
> "We believe these hearings legally can't take place until after the final
> environmental impact statement is out and the final guidelines are
> published," he said.
> Loux said state lawyers have sought answers from federal officials about
> whether next month's public hearings will be the final opportunity to
> comment on the government's plans to entomb 77,000 tons of high-level
> radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain.
> "Depending on what those answers are, we may or may not litigate. If we're
> right about our belief and successful in a court case, that could force DOE
> to do this (public hearing) process over in the future," Loux said.
> Benson said the DOE intends to have its siting guidelines published "in the
> next couple weeks," preceded by final siting guidelines from the Nuclear
> Regulatory Commission, the agency that would conduct a licensing review. He
> said the process being followed is consistent with federal nuclear waste
> laws.
> The volcanic-rock ridge, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site
> federal scientists are studying to dispose of the nation's most lethal
> radioactive waste, most of which are rods of spent nuclear fuel pellets
> currently stored at commercial power reactor sites across the nation.
> Abraham is expected to decide late this year or early next year whether to
> recommend that a repository be constructed at Yucca Mountain.
> But Loux said if the Energy Department follows its current course for
> public participation, the state could sue in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
> Appeals in San Francisco on grounds that Abraham's expected recommendation
> is based on a faulty environmental impact statement, faulty siting
> guidelines, faulty radiation protection standards "and hearings that were
> done prematurely."
> Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency and a consortium of environmental groups
> filed separate federal lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency
> in June challenging the adequacy of the EPA's standards for the proposed
> repository.
> Anti-nuclear groups Tuesday called the scheduled hearing in Las Vegas "a
> kangaroo court" and said it should be canceled because citizens don't have
> enough time to prepare for it.
> "The Department of Energy has abandoned all pretense of integrity and
> objectivity in announcing these crucial hearings at such short notice
> during a holiday season," according to Wenonah Hauter of Citizen Alert, a
> Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog that released a statement.
>
>
> This story is located at:
> http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Aug-29-Wed-2001/news/16876129.html
> --
> Kalynda Tilges
> Nuclear Issues Coordinator
> Citizen Alert - Las Vegas
> P.O.Box 17173
> Las Vegas, NV   89114
> 702-796-5662
> 702-796-4886 Fax
> [e-mail]
> http://www.citizenalert.org
>
>                                                                   CITIZEN
> ALERT
>
>                                           "A Voice For The Land And
People Of
> Nevada"
>
>
> Rosemary Bassilakis & Sal Mangiagli
> Citizens Awareness Network
> 54 Old Turnpike Road
> Haddam, CT 06438
>
> Ph/fax [phone]
> [e-mail]
> www.nukebusters.org




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:49:43 -0400
From: Joseph Gerson <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) catching up

Aug. 30
Dear Alice,
    I'm sorry I didn't follow up on your phone or e-mail messages. In
part, I've been swamped and digging out after returning from Asia.
    The other reason was that with the possibility that we'll be able to
fully fund Kevin for most of the next couple of months (waiting for
confirmation of this by the end of the week), the purpose of the call seemed
mooted.
    Hope all is well with you in these awful times,
    jg

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:15:31 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) catching up

Thanks Joe.  Kevin is simply wonderful and has unleased extraordinary new
energy in the NY Abolition Network.  He actually enrolled Al Sharpton's
Network
into participating in our Star Wars demo, and he managed to have Bruce Gagnon
invited to speak at a Sharpton rally on Racism, Materialism, and Militarism at
the UN on the eve of the UN Conference on Racism.  So we're on a roll!! Did
you
see yesterday's op-ed by the Yale law professor asserting that the Senate has
the power to stop Bush from pulling out of the ABM Treaty? How about getting
Lennedy and Kerry to take on Bush in the Senate on the ABM Treaty?  Any
connections?  I've been talking to Suzie Pearce about that.  I'm also
trying to
get to my NY Senators.  Warmest regards, Alice

At 12:49 PM 8/30/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Aug. 30
>Dear Alice,
>        I'm sorry I didn't follow up on your phone or e-mail messages. In
>part, I've been swamped and digging out after returning from Asia.
>        The other reason was that with the possibility that we'll be able to
>fully fund Kevin for most of the next couple of months (waiting for
>confirmation of this by the end of the week), the purpose of the call seemed
>mooted.
>        Hope all is well with you in these awful times,
>        jg
>
>-
> To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:37:56 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) catching up

My apologies too!  Alice

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:17:01 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: [globenet] Treaties Don't Belong to Presidents Alone

Hi Friends,
I don't think we need an injunction. The whole point of the Ackerman
article is
that the Courts ruled that this is to be determined between the Executive=
 and
Legislative branches of our government.  The Court will not rule on this
issue.   We need some Senators with spines to call for a hearing and debate=
 on
the necessity for the ABM Treaty, the nuclear proliferation implications of
withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and how it will undermine the effectiveness=
 of
the NPT where we just promised at the 2000 NPT Review to maintain the
strategic
stability of the ABM Treaty, the legality of the President's unilateral=
 action
as outlined below in the Ackerman op-ed, etc. WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO CONVINCE
YOUR SENATORS THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE A STAND?  IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS THE PATH
AHEAD. If you can't get to your Senators, get to your Member of Congress.=20
Apparently there were Joint Resolutions in the past that released our
government from treaty obligations.   Please send the Ackerman article to=
 your
Senators and Congressmembers and ask them to take a stand.  Regards, Alice=
=20

At 01:56 PM 8/30/2001 -0700, carol wolman wrote:
>  Dear Friends,  The following article seems very relevant to our
>discussion of an injunction to stop the president from withdrawing from
>the ABM Treaty without the participation of Congress.   Peace,  Carol
>
>August 29, 2001- NY TIMES op-ed
>
>By BRUCE ACKERMAN-  professor of constitutional law at Yale and
>              co-author of "Is Nafta Constitutional?''
>
>                  NEW HAVEN -- President Bush has told the Russians that
>he will
>                  withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which
>gives both
>              countries the right to terminate on six months' notice.
>But does the president
>              have the constitutional authority to exercise this power
>without first obtaining
>              Congressional consent?
>
>              Presidents don't have the power to enter into treaties
>unilaterally. This
>              requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and once
>a treaty enters
>              into force, the Constitution makes it part of the "supreme
>law of the land" =97
>              just like a statute.
>
>              Presidents can't terminate statutes they don't like. They
>must persuade both
>              houses of Congress to join in a repeal. Should the
>termination of treaties
>              operate any differently?
>
>              The question first came up in 1798. As war intensified in
>Europe, America
>              found itself in an entangling alliance with the French
>under treaties made
>              during our own revolution. But President John Adams did
>not terminate these
>              treaties unilaterally. He signed an act of Congress to
>"Declare the Treaties
>              Heretofore Concluded with France No Longer Obligatory on
>the United
>              States."
>
>              The next case was in 1846. As the country struggled to
>define its northern
>              boundary with Canada, President James Polk specifically
>asked Congress
>              for authority to withdraw from the Oregon Territory Treaty
>with Great
>              Britain, and Congress obliged with a joint resolution.
>Cooperation of the
>              legislative and executive branches remained the norm,
>despite some
>              exceptions, during the next 125 years.
>
>              The big change occurred in 1978, when Jimmy Carter
>unilaterally terminated
>              our mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. Senator Barry
>Goldwater responded
>              with a lawsuit, asking the Supreme Court to maintain the
>traditional system of
>              checks and balances. The court declined to make a decision
>on the merits of
>              the case. In an opinion by Justice William Rehnquist, four
>justices called the
>              issue a political question inappropriate for judicial
>resolution. Two others
>              refused to go this far but joined the majority for other
>reasons. So by a vote
>              of 6 to 3, the court dismissed the case.
>
>              Seven new justices have since joined the court, and there
>is no predicting
>              how a new case would turn out. Only one thing is clear. In
>dismissing
>              Senator Goldwater's complaint, the court did not endorse
>the doctrine of
>              presidential unilateralism. Justice Rehnquist expressly
>left the matter for
>              resolution "by the executive and legislative branches."
>The ball is now in
>              Congress's court. How should it respond?
>
>              First and foremost, by recognizing the seriousness of this
>matter. If President
>              Bush is allowed to terminate the ABM treaty, what is to
>stop future
>              presidents from unilaterally taking America out of NATO or
>the United
>              Nations?
>
>              The question is not whether such steps are wise, but how
>democratically they
>              should be taken. America does not enter into treaties
>lightly. They are solemn
>              commitments made after wide-ranging democratic debate.
>Unilateral action
>              by the president does not measure up to this standard.
>
>              Unilateralism might have seemed more plausible during the
>cold war. The
>              popular imagination was full of apocalyptic scenarios
>under which the
>              nation's fate hinged on emergency action by the president
>alone. These
>              decisions did not typically involve the termination of
>treaties. But with the
>              president's finger poised on the nuclear button, it might
>have seemed
>              unrealistic for constitutional scholars to insist on a
>fundamental difference
>              between the executive power to implement our foreign
>policy commitments
>              and the power to terminate them.
>
>              The world now looks very different. America's adversaries
>may inveigh
>              against its hegemony, but for America's friends, the
>crucial question is how
>              this country will exercise its dominance. Will its power
>be wielded by a single
>              man =97 unchecked by the nation's international obligations
>or the control of
>              Congress? Or will that power be exercised under the
>democratic rule of
>              law?
>
>              Barry Goldwater's warning is even more relevant today than
>20 years ago.
>              The question is whether Republicans will heed his warning
>against "a
>              dangerous precedent for executive usurpation of Congress's
>historically and
>              constitutionally based powers." Several leading senators
>signed this statement
>              that appeared in Senator Goldwater's brief =97 including
>Orrin Hatch, Jesse
>              Helms and Strom Thurmond, who are still serving. They
>should defend
>              Congress's power today, as they did in the Carter era.
>
>              If they join with Democrats in raising the constitutional
>issue, they will help
>              establish a precedent that will endure long after the ABM
>treaty is forgotten.
>              Congress should proceed with a joint resolution declaring
>that Mr. Bush
>              cannot terminate treaty obligations on his own. And if the
>president proceeds
>              unilaterally, Congress should take further steps to defend
>its role in foreign
>              policy.
>
>              We need not suppose that the president will respond by
>embarking on a
>              collision course with Congress. His father, for example,
>took a different
>              approach to constitutionally sensitive issues. When
>members of Congress
>              went to court to challenge the constitutionality of the
>Persian Gulf war,
>              President George H. W. Bush did not proceed unilaterally.
>To his great
>              credit, he requested and received support from both houses
>of Congress
>              before making war against Saddam Hussein. This decision
>stands as one
>              precedent for the democratic control of foreign policy in
>the post-cold war
>              era. We are now in the process of creating another.
>
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>Learn Trading Tips the Professional Traders Use!
>Free Newsletter from Optionetics.com
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/q1ufhB/ZR9CAA/ySSFAA/nJ9qlB/TM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[e-mail]
>
>=20
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=
=20
> =20
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]
http://www.gracelinks.org
GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination
nuclear weapons. =20

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:28:57 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: RE: [abolition-caucus] Re: [globenet] Treaties Don't Belong to Presidents Alone

>From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
>To: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>, 'ASlater'
>        <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'"
>        <[e-mail]>, 'abolition-us' <abolition-us>,
>        "'[e-mail]'"
<[e-mail]>
>Cc: "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>,
>        "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>,
>        "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'"
>        <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'"
>        <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'"
<[e-mail]>,
>        "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>,
>        "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'"
>        <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>,
>        "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'"
>        <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: RE: [abolition-caucus] Re: [globenet] Treaties Don't Belong to Pr
>        esidents Alone
>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:20:21 -0500
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
>by the way, concerning a lawsuit, as Ackerman correctly pointed out, and as
>previously argued here, Goldwater v. Carter is no obstacle, and the Court
>has changed. So again, it is still a viable option to be considered. Even if
>we got as far as Senator Goldwater did --all the way to the Supreme
>Court--that would certainly elevate the issue around the country, and serve
>as an organizing tool. So Hearings and a Lawsuit would both be good. But as
>Alice correctly pointed out, the REAL problem is that  we need a Senator
>with some guts. fab.
>
>Francis A. Boyle
>Law Building
>504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
>Champaign, IL 61820 USA
>217-333-7954(voice)
>217-244-1478(fax)
>[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Boyle, Francis
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 5:10 PM
>To: 'ASlater'; [e-mail]; abolition-us;
>[e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [abolition-caucus] Re: [globenet] Treaties Don't Belong to
>Presidents Alone
>
>
>Hearings are fine too. Hearings by Senator Sam Nunn, then  Chair of the
>Senate Armed Services Committee, demolished the Reagan administration's
>reinterpretation of the ABM Treaty out of existence in order to justify Star
>Wars. See my Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy,
>Amazon.com. fab
>
>Francis A. Boyle
>Law Building
>504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
>Champaign, IL 61820 USA
>217-333-7954(voice)
>217-244-1478(fax)
>[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ASlater [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 5:02 PM
>To: [e-mail]; abolition-us;
>[e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: [abolition-caucus] Re: [globenet] Treaties Don't Belong to
>Presidents Alone
>
>
>Hi Friends,
>I don't think we need an injunction. The whole point of the Ackerman
>article is
>that the Courts ruled that this is to be determined between the Executive
>and
>Legislative branches of our government.  The Court will not rule on this
>issue.   We need some Senators with spines to call for a hearing and debate
>on
>the necessity for the ABM Treaty, the nuclear proliferation implications of
>withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and how it will undermine the effectiveness
>of
>the NPT where we just promised at the 2000 NPT Review to maintain the
>strategic
>stability of the ABM Treaty, the legality of the President's unilateral
>action
>as outlined below in the Ackerman op-ed, etc. WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO CONVINCE
>YOUR SENATORS THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE A STAND?  IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS THE PATH
>AHEAD. If you can't get to your Senators, get to your Member of Congress.
>Apparently there were Joint Resolutions in the past that released our
>government from treaty obligations.   Please send the Ackerman article to
>your
>Senators and Congressmembers and ask them to take a stand.  Regards, Alice
>
>At 01:56 PM 8/30/2001 -0700, carol wolman wrote:
>>  Dear Friends,  The following article seems very relevant to our
>>discussion of an injunction to stop the president from withdrawing from
>>the ABM Treaty without the participation of Congress.   Peace,  Carol
>>
>>August 29, 2001- NY TIMES op-ed
>>
>>By BRUCE ACKERMAN-  professor of constitutional law at Yale and
>>              co-author of "Is Nafta Constitutional?''
>>
>>                  NEW HAVEN -- President Bush has told the Russians that
>>he will
>>                  withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which
>>gives both
>>              countries the right to terminate on six months' notice.
>>But does the president
>>              have the constitutional authority to exercise this power
>>without first obtaining
>>              Congressional consent?
>>
>>              Presidents don't have the power to enter into treaties
>>unilaterally. This
>>              requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and once
>>a treaty enters
>>              into force, the Constitution makes it part of the "supreme
>>law of the land" -
>>              just like a statute.
>>
>>              Presidents can't terminate statutes they don't like. They
>>must persuade both
>>              houses of Congress to join in a repeal. Should the
>>termination of treaties
>>              operate any differently?
>>
>>              The question first came up in 1798. As war intensified in
>>Europe, America
>>              found itself in an entangling alliance with the French
>>under treaties made
>>              during our own revolution. But President John Adams did
>>not terminate these
>>              treaties unilaterally. He signed an act of Congress to
>>"Declare the Treaties
>>              Heretofore Concluded with France No Longer Obligatory on
>>the United
>>              States."
>>
>>              The next case was in 1846. As the country struggled to
>>define its northern
>>              boundary with Canada, President James Polk specifically
>>asked Congress
>>              for authority to withdraw from the Oregon Territory Treaty
>>with Great
>>              Britain, and Congress obliged with a joint resolution.
>>Cooperation of the
>>              legislative and executive branches remained the norm,
>>despite some
>>              exceptions, during the next 125 years.
>>
>>              The big change occurred in 1978, when Jimmy Carter
>>unilaterally terminated
>>              our mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. Senator Barry
>>Goldwater responded
>>              with a lawsuit, asking the Supreme Court to maintain the
>>traditional system of
>>              checks and balances. The court declined to make a decision
>>on the merits of
>>              the case. In an opinion by Justice William Rehnquist, four
>>justices called the
>>              issue a political question inappropriate for judicial
>>resolution. Two others
>>              refused to go this far but joined the majority for other
>>reasons. So by a vote
>>              of 6 to 3, the court dismissed the case.
>>
>>              Seven new justices have since joined the court, and there
>>is no predicting
>>              how a new case would turn out. Only one thing is clear. In
>>dismissing
>>              Senator Goldwater's complaint, the court did not endorse
>>the doctrine of
>>              presidential unilateralism. Justice Rehnquist expressly
>>left the matter for
>>              resolution "by the executive and legislative branches."
>>The ball is now in
>>              Congress's court. How should it respond?
>>
>>              First and foremost, by recognizing the seriousness of this
>>matter. If President
>>              Bush is allowed to terminate the ABM treaty, what is to
>>stop future
>>              presidents from unilaterally taking America out of NATO or
>>the United
>>              Nations?
>>
>>              The question is not whether such steps are wise, but how
>>democratically they
>>              should be taken. America does not enter into treaties
>>lightly. They are solemn
>>              commitments made after wide-ranging democratic debate.
>>Unilateral action
>>              by the president does not measure up to this standard.
>>
>>              Unilateralism might have seemed more plausible during the
>>cold war. The
>>              popular imagination was full of apocalyptic scenarios
>>under which the
>>              nation's fate hinged on emergency action by the president
>>alone. These
>>              decisions did not typically involve the termination of
>>treaties. But with the
>>              president's finger poised on the nuclear button, it might
>>have seemed
>>              unrealistic for constitutional scholars to insist on a
>>fundamental difference
>>              between the executive power to implement our foreign
>>policy commitments
>>              and the power to terminate them.
>>
>>              The world now looks very different. America's adversaries
>>may inveigh
>>              against its hegemony, but for America's friends, the
>>crucial question is how
>>              this country will exercise its dominance. Will its power
>>be wielded by a single
>>              man - unchecked by the nation's international obligations
>>or the control of
>>              Congress? Or will that power be exercised under the
>>democratic rule of
>>              law?
>>
>>              Barry Goldwater's warning is even more relevant today than
>>20 years ago.
>>              The question is whether Republicans will heed his warning
>>against "a
>>              dangerous precedent for executive usurpation of Congress's
>>historically and
>>              constitutionally based powers." Several leading senators
>>signed this statement
>>              that appeared in Senator Goldwater's brief - including
>>Orrin Hatch, Jesse
>>              Helms and Strom Thurmond, who are still serving. They
>>should defend
>>              Congress's power today, as they did in the Carter era.
>>
>>              If they join with Democrats in raising the constitutional
>>issue, they will help
>>              establish a precedent that will endure long after the ABM
>>treaty is forgotten.
>>              Congress should proceed with a joint resolution declaring
>>that Mr. Bush
>>              cannot terminate treaty obligations on his own. And if the
>>president proceeds
>>              unilaterally, Congress should take further steps to defend
>>its role in foreign
>>              policy.
>>
>>              We need not suppose that the president will respond by
>>embarking on a
>>              collision course with Congress. His father, for example,
>>took a different
>>              approach to constitutionally sensitive issues. When
>>members of Congress
>>              went to court to challenge the constitutionality of the
>>Persian Gulf war,
>>              President George H. W. Bush did not proceed unilaterally.
>>To his great
>>              credit, he requested and received support from both houses
>>of Congress
>>              before making war against Saddam Hussein. This decision
>>stands as one
>>              precedent for the democratic control of foreign policy in
>>the post-cold war
>>              era. We are now in the process of creating another.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>[e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>Alice Slater
>Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
>15 East 26th Street, Room 915
>New York, NY 10010
>tel:  [phone]
>fax:  [phone]
>email:  [e-mail]
>http://www.gracelinks.org
>GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination
>nuclear weapons.
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>FREE COLLEGE MONEY
>CLICK HERE to search
>600,000 scholarships!
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/zoU8wD/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/7XSolB/TM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account
>you wish to be subscribed to: "[e-mail]"
>
>
>Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:38:56 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Re: Articles

>
> From: [e-mail]
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:25:40 EDT
> Subject: Re: Articles
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail] (Barry Kellman),
> [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail]
> CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail]
> X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
> X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0105/china.missile.defense/frameset.
> exclude.html>CNN.com - Missile Defense Plan
> Is this a paid advertisement of Lockheed Martin? Is this news? Do we have a
> right to another opinion? How did this get placed on CNN's site? Whose
> missile defense plan is this? Is this the limited theater plan proposed? Is
> this the same plan proposed to NATO, to Putin, to Laura? What can and
should
> we do about this blatant propoganda? Jonathan




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #461
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.