Replies

I was stating the facts. These people were all members of the House. They had no role in approving treaties.

Had this been the United States Senate, as a body, raising the question with the courts...well, it would be very interesting indeed. However, they didn't. Silence equals consent.

These people were all members of the House. They had no role in approving treaties.

These people all swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"...

I, __, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Article II.
Section. 2.
Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...

You don't thin they actually read the FReepin' thing?

Not completely accurate. While the Senate must give advice and consent to treaties, the House does have a role in treaty making under the Constitution in that it has to appropriate monies to carry out the terms of the treaty. But since here the House never acted to appropriate funds to implement the ABM Treaty or to otherwise take steps to block the President's withdrawal of this country's being a party to the aforesaid treaty, the suit by the members had no legal standing. And the courts as a rule do not get involved in political controversies.