tx_eggman is right, xzins, you've got it wrong.
2/3 of Senators present can ratify a treaty.
For example...
@ PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
S10667
2/3 of the Senate wasn't there. Those present voted for the ratification. The quorum call was rescinded with no objection. That's 34 treaties ratified with a hand count!
It doesn't matter if they aren't present when the vote comes up.
So we have the potential of all these "stand up guys" simply not showing up when it comes time to vote and they can then truthfully claim "I was against this treaty".
They need to formalize their intent to object.
Executive Calendar
It could be ratified due to one person simply not doing their job properly.
Senate Consideration of Treaties September 15, 2009
@ quorum
The number of senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.
“2/3 of Senators present can ratify a treaty.”
Good find, Philman-
Now watch them schedule a midnight session on Xmas eve!
There is also the possiblity of Obama ramming it through in s lame duck session.
We considered them needing to be ratified in the past because the Senate would not have dared played the tricks we’ve seen lately, nobody even considered the possiblity of the upper house refusing to even VOTE on a budget until now, right?
Good information, Phil.
However, the point is that the president cannot unilaterally sign a treaty AND have that treaty be the supreme law of the land.
Therefore, the Senate must have the 2/3rd vote for it to be ratified. Whether the full Senate or merely 2/3 of a quorum, the vote still must take place for the treaty to become law.
Of course, all 34 of the objecting senators SHOULD forward their notice of intent to object.
Do votes in the Senate require scheduling and reasonable notification?
I had a "terrifying" interaction with him a few days ago ...I haven't been able to go to sleep without the light on since then:
Linky Thing: I first peak philman's interest
Linky Thing: philman responds
Linky Thing: I point out philman's anal/ocd tendencies
Linky Thing: philman gets his panties in a wad
Linky Thing: philman wasn't done yet
Linky Thing: I answer philman's question
Linky Thing: The end of the trail - philman's life is good
Phil, keep up the good work.