Treaty power Senate, powers

Revisionists were more concerned with the interplay between this superiority complex and the hundred years of ignominy that China had suffered under unequal treaties imposed by Western powers after the Opium War of 1842. The China specialists at the Senate hearings presented an image of China derived from three main historical observations. First, it was historically a very big, ancient, isolated, unified, and self-sufficient empire, and because of this, an intensely ethnocentric great power. Second, because of its humiliation under the Western gunboat diplomacy of the nineteenth century, the Chinese were ultra-nationalistic and had a... 

With regard to the intermixture of powers, I shall rely upon the explanations already given, in other places [Nos. 47 and 48] of the true sense of the rule, upon which that objection is founded and shall take it for granted, as an inference from them, that the union of the executive with the Senate, in the article of treaties, is no infringement of that rule. 

The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two thirds of the Senate. I do not find any limitation, or restriction, to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights It certainly ought. 

It is to be observed, that the supreme court has the power, in the last resort, to determine all questions that may arise in the course of legal discussion, on the meaning and construction of the constitution. This power they will hold under the constitution, and independent of the legislature. The latter can no more deprive the former of this right, than either of them, or both of them together, can take from the president, with the advice of the Senate, the power of making treaties, or appointing ambassadors. 

The Senate s composition and mode of election (62-63 Madison), power to make treaties (64 Jay), and power to impeach (65-66 Hamilton)... 

As Garvan planned the Chemical Foundation in January and February of 1919, the APC had not yet seized any of the chemical patents beyond the ones sold with the Bayer Company. The rest remained in trust. The Office of Alien Property, with the help of the largest chemical manufacturers, raced to implement their plan before a peace treaty technically ended the state of war and limited the powers of the APC, which they expected could occur within weeks. Under the auspices of the American Dyes Institute, Du Pont and National Aniline supplied money and patent lawyers to develop a list of patents that they wished the APC to seize and convey to the Chemical Foundation. The APC s staff worked around the clock to process the seizure but essentially rubber-stamped the selection made by the American Dyes Institute lawyers, who possessed a broad working definition of the chemical industry — the patents included those for stainless steel, for example. The first and most important sale to the Chemical Foundation sent about 4,500 patents to the foundation in exchange for 250,000. By 1921, when the Senate officially ended the state of war with Germany, the total sale amounted to 271,850. 

---