Case Name: Senator Barry GOLDWATER et al. v. James Earl CARTER, President of the United States et al., Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1979-11-30
Citations: 199 U.S. App. D.C. 115
Docket Number: No. 79-2246
Parties: Senator Barry GOLDWATER et al. v. James Earl CARTER, President of the United States et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before WRIGHT, Chief Judge, and McGOWAN, TAMM, LEVENTHAL , ROBINSON, MacKINNON, WILKEY and WALD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Volume: 199
Pages: 115–158

Head Matter:
617 F.2d 697
Senator Barry GOLDWATER et al. v. James Earl CARTER, President of the United States et al., Appellants.
No. 79-2246.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued en banc Nov. 13, 1979.
Decided Nov. 30, 1979.
As Amended Dec. 5, 1979.
Judgment Vacated Dec. 13, 1979.
See 100 S.Ct. 533.
John M. Harmon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Carl S. Rauh, U. S. Atty., and Robert E. Kopp, William Kanter, Michael F. Hertz, and Linda M. Cole, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for appellants.
Paul D. Kamenar and Northcutt Ely, Washington, D. C., with whom Daniel J. Popeo, Robert F. Pietrowski, Jr., and Ralph J. Gillis, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for appellees.
Charles N. Brower, Washington, D. C., with whom Paul L. Friedman, Washington, D. C., was on brief, for amici curiae International Law Institute of the Georgetown University Law Center et al., urging reversal and dismissal of the complaint.
Before WRIGHT, Chief Judge, and McGOWAN, TAMM, LEVENTHAL , ROBINSON, MacKINNON, WILKEY and WALD, Circuit Judges.
Circuit Judge Leventhal participated in the consideration of this case but died before the decision and judgment were announced.

Opinion:
Opinion for thé court PER CURIAM.
Opinion concurring in the result, in which Circuit Judge TAMM joins, filed by Chief Judge WRIGHT.
Opinion dissenting in part and. concurring in part filed by Circuit Judge MacKINNON.
PER CURIAM:
The court en banc has before it for review the judgment of the District Court that the notice of termination given by the President pursuant to the terms of the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of China is ineffective absent either (1) a manifestation of the consent of the Senate to such termination by a two-thirds vote or (2) an approving majority vote therefor by both houses of Congress. The preliminary questions we confront are, first, whether the District Court was without jurisdiction because appellees lacked standing, and, second, whether it should in any event have declined to exercise jurisdiction by reason of the political nature of the question it was called upon to decide. Since a majority of the court does not exist to dispose of the appeal on either of these bases, we reach the merits and reverse.
In doing so, however, we think it important at the outset to stress that the Treaty, as it was presented to the Senate in 1954 and consented to by it, contained an explicit provision for termination by either party on one year's notice. The Senate, in the course of giving its consent, exhibited no purpose and took no action to reserve a role for itself — by amendment, reservation, or condition — in the effectuation of this provision. Neither has the Senate, since the giving of the notice of termination, purported to take any final or decisive action with respect to it, either by way of approval or disapproval. The constitutional issue we face, therefore, is solely and simply the one of whether the President in these precise circumstances is, on behalf of the United States, empowered to terminate the Treaty in accordance with its terms. It is our view that he is, and that the limitations which the District Court purported to place on his action in this regard have no foundation in the Constitution.
BACKGROUND
In the aftermath of the Chinese Revolution and the Korean War, the United States and the Republic of China (ROC) negotiated a Mutual Defense Treaty, primarily directed against the perceived threat from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Treaty was signed by representatives of both nations on December 2, 1954. It was approved by the Senate, and finally signed by the President on February 11,1955. Article V of the Treaty provided that, in the event of an attack on Taiwan, the Pescadores, or United States territories in the western Pacific, each nation "would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes." Article X of the Treaty provided that it would remain in force "indefinitely," but said that "[e]ither Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other Party."
At that time both the ROC and PRC claimed — and still claim — to be the sole legitimate government of China; both considered Taiwan a part of China. Since then over 100 nations, including all of our NATO allies and Japan, have officially recognized the PRC as the sole government of China, breaking off relations with Taiwan. In 1971 the United Nations admitted delegates from the PRC to the seats reserved for China in the General Assembly, and Security Council, and expelled those from the ROC.
In the early 1970's the United States began to pursue a policy of closer relations with the PRC. The early stage of this effort culminated in President Nixon's visit to the mainland of China, during which the two nations released the "Shanghai Communique," declaring the goal of "normalization of relations between China and the United States." The PRC stipulated that full mutual diplomatic recognition was preconditioned on United States agreement to cease all diplomatic and other official relations with the ROC, to withdraw United States military units from Taiwan, and to terminate the Mutual Defense Treaty with the ROC.
In September 1978 Congress passed and the President signed the International Security Assistance Act of 1978, Pub.L.No.95-384, 92 Stat. 746. Section 26 of that Act, called the "Dole-Stone Améndment," provided:
It is the sense of the Congress that there should be prior consultation between the Congress and the executive branch on any proposed policy changes affecting the continuation in force of the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954.
On December 15, 1978 President Carter announced that the United States would recognize the PRC as the sole government of China, effective January 1, 1979, and would simultaneously withdraw recognition from the ROC. In addition, the United States announced that the ROC would be notified that "the Mutual Defense Treaty is being terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty." On December 23, 1978 the State Department formally notified the ROC that the Treaty would terminate on January 1, 1980.
While severing all official ties with the ROC, the United States has sought to preserve "extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan." The Taiwan Relations Act, Pub.L.No.96-8, 93 Stat. 14, signed into law on April 10, 1979, established the statutory framework for such relations. It provided:
For all purposes, including actions in any court in the United States, the Congress approves the continuation in force of all treaties and other international agreements, including multilateral conventions, entered into by the United States and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and in force between them on December 31, 1978, unless and until terminated in accordance with law.
Id. § 4(c).
On December 22, 1978 plaintiffs-appellees filed this suit in District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent termination of the Treaty without senatorial or congressional consent. The complaint alleged that the President violated his sworn duty to uphold the laws, including the treaties, of the United States. It asserted that the President has no unilateral power under the Constitution to abrogate treaties, and that the United States, not the President, is the party invested by Article X of the Treaty with the power of termination.
On June 6, 1979 the District Court dismissed the suit, without prejudice, for lack of standing. The court observed that three resolutions then pending in the Senate might resolve the controversy without need for judicial intervention. The court concluded:
If the Congress approves the President's action, the issue presently before the Court would be moot. If the Senate or the Congress takes action, the result of which falls short of approving the President's termination effort, then the controversy will be ripe for a judicial declaration. .
JA 631-632.
Within hours of the District Court order the Senate called up Senate Resolution 15 which, as amended by the Foreign Relations Committee, would have recognized some fourteen grounds that would justify unilateral action by the President to terminate treaty obligations of the United States. By a vote of 59 to 35 the Senate substituted for its consideration an amendment drafted by Senator Harry Byrd, Jr.:
That it is the sense of the Senate that approval of the United States Senate is required to terminate any mutual defense treaty between the United States and another nation.
125 Cong.Rec. S7015, S7038-S7039 (daily ed. June 6, 1979). Later that day, during the course of debate on the amended resolution, a dispute arose among the Senators over whether the resolution would have retrospective, or merely prospective effect. No final vote was ever taken on the resolution, and the Majority Leader returned the resolution to the calendar.
On June 12, 1979, after the Byrd amendment was voted on, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a motion in District Court for alteration or amendment of the June 6 order of dismissal. They contended that the Senate's action on the Byrd amendment satisfied the court's stated criteria for creating a justiciable controversy. On October 17, 1979 the District Court granted this motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had suffered the requisite injury in fact because of the denial of their right to be consulted and to vote on treaty termination. The court also ruled that the case did not present a nonjusticiable political question. Reaching the constitutional question, the court granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.
I
For purposes of the standing issue, we accept, as we must, appellees' pleaded theo ries as valid. A majority of the court is of the view that, at least as their principal theory has evolved — that the Senate has a constitutional right to vote on the President's proposed treaty termination and to block such termination with a one-third plus one vote — the appellee Senators have standing.
If there is merit to their allegations, such Senators have suffered injury in fact from the President's action terminating the Treaty without Senate consent. This action has deprived the Senate of the opportunity— which appellees assert to be constitutionally prescribed — to vote whether to prevent the termination of this treaty. By excluding the Senate from the treaty termination process, the President has deprived each individual Senator of his alleged right to cast a vote that will have binding effect on whether the Treaty can be terminated. The President has thus nullified the right that each appellee Senator claims under the Constitution to be able to block the termination of this treaty by voting, in conjunction with one-third of his colleagues, against it.
In our decisions on congressional standing this court has carefully drawn a distinction between (1) a diminution in congressional influence resulting from an Executive action that nullifies a specific congressional vote or opportunity to vote, in an objectively verifiable manner — which, we have found, constitutes injury in fact; and (2) a diminution in a legislator's effectiveness, subjectively judged by him or her, resulting from Executive action withholding information or failing to obey a statute enacted through the legislator's vote, where the plaintiff-legislator still has power to act through the legislative process to remedy the alleged abuses — in which situations we do not find injury in fact. To be cognizable for standing purposes, the alleged diminution in congressional influence must amount to a disenfranchisement, a complete nullification or withdrawal of a voting opportunity; and the plaintiff must point to an objective standard in the Constitution, statutes or congressional house rules, by which disenfranchisement can be shown.
In the present case, appellees plead an objective standard in the Constitution as giving them a right to vote on treaty termination. They further allege disenfranchisement in the context of a specific measure, i.e., the proposed termination of the Mutual Defense Treaty. Whether the President's action amounts to a complete disenfranchisement depends on whether appellees have left to them any legislative means to vote in the way they claim is their right. In. other words, do they have effective power to block the termination of this treaty despite the President's action? This is the crucial issue, and the focus of our disagreement with the concurring opinion.
The crucial fact is that, on the record before us, there is no conceivable senatorial action that could likely prevent termination of the Treaty. A congressional resolution or statute might at most have persuasive effect with the President; it could not block termination if he persisted in his present interpretation of the Constitution giving him unilateral power to terminate. That appellee Senators have no power to enact a remedy is especially clear in light of the nature of their constitutional claim. They claim the right to block termination with only one-third plus one of their colleagues. There is no way that such a minority can even force a resolution to the floor, let alone pass it. To pretend that effective remedies are open to appellees is to ignore that, first, their alleged right would enable them to block termination with a minority, and, second, that even if they could muster a majority, any legislative action they might take under the present circumstances could well be futile. The only way the Senate can effectively vote on a treaty termination, with the burden on termination proponents to secure a two-thirds majority, is for the President to submit the proposed treaty termination to the Senate as he would a proposed treaty. This is the concrete remedy appellees seek. For the court to require of them some other legislative action before allowing them standing to pursue this claim would be to require a useless act.
Since the President has not afforded an opportunity for an up-or-down vote as appellees request, we do not know whether the Senate would actually block the President's action if given the opportunity. Yet courts consistently vindicate the right to vote without first demanding that the votes when cast will achieve their intended end. A live controversy exists in appellees' claim of an opportunity to cast a binding vote. The President's action has deprived them of this opportunity completely, in the sense that they have no legislative power to exercise an equivalent voting opportunity. Therefore, appellee Senators have standing.
II
Various considerations enter into our determination that the President's notice of termination will be effective on January 1, 1980. The result we reach draws upon their totality, but in listing them hereinafter we neither assign them hierarchical values nor imply that any one factor or combination of factors is determinative.
1. We turn first to the argument, embraced by the District Court, drawn from the language of Article II, § 2, of the Constitution. It is that, since the President clearly cannot enter into a treaty without the consent of the Senate, the inference is inescapable that he must in all circumstances seek the same senatorial consent to terminate that treaty. As a matter of language alone, however, the same inference would appear automatically to obtain with respect to the termination by the President of officers appointed by him under the same clause of the Constitution and subject to Senate confirmation. But the Supreme Court has read that clause as not having such an inevitable effect in any and all circumstances. Compare Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 47 S.Ct. 21, 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926) with In re Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 55 S.Ct. 869, 79 L.Ed. 1611 (1935). In the area of foreign relations in particular, where the constitutional commitment of powers to the President is notably comprehensive, it has never been suggested that the services of Ambas sadors — appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and of critical importance as they are to the successful conduct of our foreign relations — may not be terminated by the President without the prior authorization of that body.
Expansion of the language of the Constitution by sequential linguistic projection is a tricky business at best. Virtually all constitutional principles have unique elements and can be distinguished from one another. As the Supreme Court has recognized with respect to the clause in question, it is not abstract logic or sterile symmetry that controls, but a sensible and realistic ascertainment of the meaning of the Constitution in the context of the specific action taken.
2.The District Court's declaration, in the alternative, that the necessary authority in this instance may be granted by a majority of each house of Congress presumably has its source in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. The argument is that a treaty, being a part of the "supreme Law of the Land," can only be terminated at the least by a subsequent federal statute.
The central purpose of the Supremacy Clause has been accepted to be that of causing each of the designated supreme laws — Constitution, statute, and treaty — to prevail, for purposes of domestic law, over state law in any form. Article VI speaks explicitly to the judges to assure that this is so. But these three types of supreme law are not necessarily the same in their other characteristics, any more than are the circumstances and terms of their creation the same. Certainly the Constitution is silent on the matter of treaty termination. And the fact that it speaks to the common characteristic of supremacy over state law does not provide any basis for concluding that a treaty must be unmade either by (1) the same process by which it was made, or (2) the alternative means by which a statute is made or terminated.
3. The constitutional institution of advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators concur, is a special and extraordinary condition of the exercise by the President of certain specified powers under Article II. It is not lightly to be extended in instances not set forth in the Constitution. Such an extension by implication is not proper unless that implication is unmistakably clear.
The District Court's absolutist extension of this limitation to termination of treaties, irrespective of the particular circumstances involved, is not sound. The making of a treaty has the consequences of an entangling alliance for the nation. Similarly, the amending of a treaty merely continues such entangling alliances, changing only their character, and therefore also requires the advice and consent of the Senate. It does not follow, however, that a constitutional provision for a special concurrence (two-thirds of the Senators) prior to entry into an entangling alliance necessarily applies to its termination in accordance with its terms.
4. The Constitution specifically confers no power of treaty termination on either the Congress or the Executive. We note, however, that the powers conferred upon Congress in Article I of the Constitution are specific, detailed, and limited, while the powers conferred upon the President by Article II are generalized in a manner that bespeaks no such limitation upon foreign affairs powers. "Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President . ." Although specific powers are listed in Section 2 and Section 3, these are in many instances not powers necessary to an Executive, while "The executive Power" referred to in Section 1 is nowhere defined. There is no required two-thirds vote of the Senate conditioning the exercise of any power in Section 1.
In some instances this difference is reflective of the origin of the particular power in question. In general, the powers of the federal government arise out of specific grants of authority delegated by the states — hence the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. The foreign affairs powers, however, proceed directly from the sovereignty of the Union. "[I]f they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, [they] would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, 57 S.Ct. 216, 220, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936).
The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with respect to external affairs. It is significant that the treaty power appears in Article II of the Constitution, relating to the executive branch, and not in Article I, setting forth the powers of the legislative branch. It is the President as Chief Executive who is given the constitutional authority to enter into a treaty; and even after he has obtained the consent of the Senate it is for him to decide whether to ratify a treaty and put it into effect. Senatorial confirmation of a treaty concededly does not obligate the President to go forward with a treaty if he concludes that it is not in the public interest to do so.
Thus, in contrast to the lawmaking power, the constitutional initiative in the treaty-making field is in the President, not Congress. It would take an unprecedented feat of judicial construction to read into the Constitution an absolute condition precedent of congressional or Senate approval for termination of all treaties, similar to the specific one relating to initial approval. And it would unalterably affect the balance of power between the two Branches laid down in Articles I and II.
5. Ultimately, what must be recognized is that a treaty is sui generis. It is not just another law. It is an international compact, a solemn obligation of the United States and a "supreme Law" that supersedes state policies and prior federal laws. For clarity of analysis, it is thus well to distinguish between treaty-making as an international act and the consequences which flow domestically from such act. In one realm the Constitution has conferred the primary role upon the President; in the other, Congress retains its primary role as lawmaker. The fact that the Constitution, statutes, and treaties are all listed in the Supremacy Clause as being superior to any form of state law does not mean that the making and unmaking of treaties can be analogized to the making and unmaking of domestic statutes any more than it can be analogized to the making or unmaking of a constitutional amendment.
The recognized powers of Congress to implement (or fail to implement) a treaty by an appropriation or other law essential to its effectuation, or to supersede for all practical purposes the effect of a treaty on domestic law, are legislative powers, not treaty-making or treaty termination powers. The issue here, however, is not Congress' legislative powers to supersede or affect the domestic impact of a treaty; the issue is whether the Senate (or Congress) must in this case give its prior consent to discontinue a treaty which the President thinks it desirable to terminate in the national interest and pursuant to a provision in the treaty itself. The existence, in practical terms, of one power does not imply the existence, in constitutional terms, of the other.
6. If we were to hold that under the Constitution a treaty could only be terminated by exactly the same process by which it was made, we would be locking the United States into all of its international obligations, even if the President and two-thirds of the Senate minus one firmly believed that the proper course for the United States was to terminate a treaty. Many of our treaties in force, such as mutual defense treaties, carry potentially dangerous obligations. These obligations are terminable under international law upon breach by the other party or change in circumstances that frustrates the purpose of the treaty. In many of these situations the President must take immediate action. The creation of a constitutionally obligatory role in all cases for a two-thirds consent by the Senate would give to one-third plus one of the Senate the power to deny the President the authority necessary to conduct our foreign policy in a rational and effective manner.
7. Even as to the formal termination of treaties, as the District Court pointed out, "a variety of means have been used to terminate treaties." There is much debate among the historians and scholars as to whether in some instances the legislature has been involved at all; they are agreed that, when involved, that involvement with the President has taken many different forms. It appears moreover that the Senate may wish to continue to determine the nature of its involvement on a case by case basis. 125 Cong.Rec. S16683-S16692 (daily ed. Nov. 15, 1979).
The District Court concluded that the diversity of historical precedents left an inconclusive basis on which to decide the issue of whether the President's power to terminate a treaty must always be "shared" in some way by the Senate or Congress. We agree. Yet we think it is not without significance that out of all the historical precedents brought to our attention, in no situation has a treaty been continued in force over the opposition of the President.
There is on the other hand widespread agreement that the President has the power as Chief Executive under many circumstances to exercise functions regarding treaties which have the effect of either terminating or continuing their vitality. Prominent among these is the authority of the President as Chief Executive (1) to determine whether a treaty has terminated because of a breach, Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 473-476, 33 S.Ct. 945, 57 L.Ed. 1274 (1913); and (2) to determine whether a treaty is at an end due to changed circumstances.
In short, the determination of the conduct of the United States in regard to trea ties is an instance of what has broadly been called the "foreign affairs power" of the President. We have no occasion to define that term, but we do take account of its vitality. The Curtiss-Wright opinion, written by a Justice who had served in the United States Senate, declares in oft-repeated language that the President is "the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations." That status is not confined to the service of the President as a channel of communication, as the District Court suggested, but embraces an active policy determination as to the conduct of the United States in regard to a treaty in response to numerous problems and circumstances as they arise.
8. How the vital functions of the President in implementing treaties and in deciding on their viability in response to changing events can or should interact with Congress' legitimate concerns and powers in relating to foreign affairs is an area into which we should not and do not prematurely intrude. History shows us that there are too many variables to lay down any hard and fast constitutional rules.
We cannot find an implied role in the Constitution for the Senate in treaty termination for some but not all treaties in terms of their relative importance. There is no judicially ascertainable and manageable method of making any distinction among treaties on the basis of their substance, the magnitude of the risk involved, the degree of controversy which their termination would engender, or by any other standards. We know of no standards to apply in making such distinctions. The facts on which such distinctions might be drawn may be difficult of ascertainment; and the resolution of such inevitable disputes between the two Branches would be an improper and unnecessary role for the courts. To decide whether there was a breach or changed circumstances, for example, would involve a court in making fundamental decisions of foreign policy and would create insuperable problems of evidentiary proof. This is beyond the acceptable judicial role. All we decide today is that two-thirds Senate consent or majority consent in both houses is not necessary to terminate this treaty in the circumstances before us now.
9. The circumstances involved in the termination of the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of China include a number of material and unique elements. Prominent is assertion by the officials of both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China that each of them is the government of China, intending the term China to comprehend both the mainland of China and the island of Taiwan. In the 1972 Shanghai Communique, the United States acknowledged that position and did not challenge it. It is in this context that the recent Joint Communique set forth as of January 1, 1979 that the United States recognizes the People's Republic of China as "the sole legal government of China." This action made reference to "the people of Taiwan," stating that the peoples of the United States and Taiwan "will maintain cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations." This formulation was confirmed by the Taiwan Relations Act.
It is undisputed that the Constitution gave the President full constitutional authority to recognize the PRC and to dere cognize the ROC. What the United States has evolved for Taiwan is a novel and somewhat indefinite relationship, namely, of unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan. The subtleties involved in maintaining amorphous relationships are often the very stuff of diplomacy — a field in which the President, not Congress, has responsibility under our Constitution. The President makes a responsible claim that he has authority as Chief Executive to determine that there is no meaningful vitality to a mutual defense treaty when there is no recognized state. That is not to say that the recognition power automatically gives the President authority to take any action that is required or requested by the state being recognized. We do not need to reach this question. Nevertheless, it remains an important ingredient in the case at bar that the President has determined that circumstances have changed so as to preclude continuation of the Mutual Defense Treaty with the ROC; diplomatic recognition of the ROC came to an end on January 1,1979, and now there exists only "cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations" with the "people on Taiwan."
10. Finally, and of central significance, the treaty here at issue contains a termination clause. The existence of Article X of the ROC treaty, permitting termination by either party on one year's notice, is an overarching factor in this case, which in effect enables all of the other considerations to be knit together.
Without derogating from the executive power of the President to decide to act contrary to the wording of a treaty — for example, because of a breach by the other party (Charlton v. Kelly, supra), or because of a doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus) — the President's authority as Chief Executive is at its zenith when the Senate has consented to a treaty that expressly provides for termination on one year's notice, and the President's action is the giving of notice of termination.
As already noted, we have no occasion to decide whether this factor would be determinative in a case lacking other factors identified above, e. g., under a notice of withdrawal from the NATO treaty unaccompanied by derecognition of the other signatories. No specific restriction or condition on the President's action is found within the Constitution or this treaty itself. The termination clause is without conditions and without designation as to who shall act to terminate it. No specific role is spelled out in either the Constitution or this treaty for the Senate or the Congress as a whole. That power consequently devolves upon the President, and there is no basis for a court to imply a restriction on the President's power to terminate not contained in the Constitution, in this treaty, or in any other authoritative source.
While under the termination clause of this and similar treaties the power of the President to terminate may appear theoretically absolute, to think that this is so would be to ignore all historical practices in treaty termination and past and current reciprocal relationships between the Chief Executive and Congress. The wide variety of roles played by the Executive and the Congress (or the Senate alone) in the past termination of treaties teaches us nothing conclusive as to constitutional theory, but it instructs us as to what may fairly be contemplated as to the President's future exercise of the treaty termination power. Treaty termination is a political act, but political acts are not customarily taken without po litical support. Even if formal advice and consent is not constitutionally required as a prerequisite to termination, it might be sought. If the Congress is completely ignored, it has its arsenal of weapons, as previous Chief Executives have on occasion been sharply reminded.
Thus, the court is not to be taken as minimizing the role of the legislature in foreign affairs. The legislature's powers, including prominently its dominant status in the provision of funds, and its authority to investigate the Executive's functioning, establish authority for appropriate legislative participation in foreign affairs. The question of whether the Senate may be able to reserve to itself in particular treaties, at the time of their original submission, a specific role in their termination is not presented by the record in this appeal and we decide nothing with respect to it. The matter before us is solely one of whether the Constitution nullifies the procedure followed by the President in this instance. We find the President did not exceed his authority when he took action to withdraw from the ROC treaty, by giving notice under Article X of the Treaty, without the consent of the Senate or other legislative concurrences.
III
In our holding in this case we do not ignore the question of justiciability. We regard the only issue here to be whether the constitutional allocation of governmental power between two branches requires prior legislative consent to the termination of this treaty under the circumstances presented by this record. Viewing the issue before us so narrowly and in the circumstances of this treaty and its history to date, we see no reason which we could in good conscience invoke to refrain from judgment, and conclude that it is the duty of the court to confront and decide that issue.
Reversed,
. In a separate concurring opinion, Judges Wright and Tamm have limited their consideration to the question of standing; and, finding that none exists, vote to reverse the District Court. There are no votes to reverse founded upon the political question doctrine.
. Amici in this court cast their argument in terms of a mootness disposition which assertedly would make it unnecessary to decide whether the President could, without congressional participation, terminate the Treaty by giving notice in accordance with its terms. ' They submit that the President's action in recognizing the People's Republic of China and in withdrawing recognition of the Republic of China, arising out of changed circumstances, of its own force under international law brought an end to the Mutual Defense Treaty between the latter and the United States. This end, so it is said, occurred automatically, and thus there is no necessity for the court to rule upon the validity of the notice of termination which in substance had no meaning or effect.
Without intimating any view on the accuracy of the amici's premises, we do not pursue the mootness claim for the reason that the President did not purport to rely on international law as a possible defense against any future claim that the Treaty was a continuing obligation of the United States despite the events enumerated by the amici. Instead, the President elected to assert, on behalf of the United States, the privilege of terminating the Treaty by appropriate notice as provided by its own terms. A proper functioning of such a mutual termination clause is to permit a party to a treaty to respond to a change in circumstances without becoming embroiled in disputes as to the reach of international law doctrines. As we hold hereinafter, this course of action was, on the facts in this record, within the constitutional authority of the President.
. Taiwan Relations Act, Pub.L.No.96-8, 93 Stat. 14, § 2(b)(1) (April 10, 1979). Relations between the United States Government and the authorities on Taiwan are conducted through a nonprofit corporation, the American Institute in Taiwan. Id. § 6.
. Section 3 of the Act authorizes the United States to provide defense material to Taiwan, and says that "[t]he President and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan." It further directs the President to report to the Congress on "any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any.danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom." The President and the Congress then "shall determine appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger." Id. § 3.
. Only one of the resolutions, Senate Resolution 15, introduced by Senator Harry Byrd, Jr., reached the floor of the Senate. See also S.Res. 10, 125 Con.Rec. S209 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 1979) (introduced by Senator Dole); S.Con. Res. 22, id. at S219 (daily ed. Jan. 18, 1979) (introduced by Senator Goldwater).
. Among other grounds, the Committee version would have recognized the right of the President to terminate treaties containing termination clauses like Article X of the 1954 Treaty.
.After oral argument was heard in this court, the Senate debated the resolution, but again took no action. 125 Cong.Rec. S16683-S16692 (daily ed. Nov. 15, 1979). As explained by Senate Parlimentarian Murray Zweben, no final action has been taken on Senate Resolution 15, and the Senate "may or may not return to its consideration in the future." JA 659.
. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).
. See Harrington v. Bush, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 45, 66-67, 553 F.2d 190, 211-12 (1977); Kennedy v. Sampson, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 197-98, 511 F.2d 430, 435-36 (1974).
.See Reuss v. Balles, 189 U.S.App.D.C. 303, 309-310, 584 F.2d 461, 467-68 & n.20, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 997, 99 S.Ct. 598, 58 L.Ed.2d 670 (1978); Metcalf v. National Petroleum Council, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 43-44, 553 F.2d 176, 188-89 (1977); Harrington v. Bush, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 45, 54 n.41, 553 F.2d 190, 199 n.41, 211-14 (1977).
. See Harrington v. Bush, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 45, 67, 553 F.2d 190, 212 (1977).
.In his concurrence, 199 U.S.App.D.C. at 128, 617 F.2d at 710-711, Chief Judge Wright also attempts to limit congressional standing to nullification of past votes, citing Kennedy v. Sampson, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 511 F.2d 430 (1974). Nothing in Kennedy v. Sampson, nor in the logic of what constitutes injury in fact, justifies such a limitation. On the contrary, a claim of nullification of past vote alone — based, for instance, on the Executive's failure to obey a validly enacted statute — gives a legislator no better grounds for standing than any other citizen. Courts have properly denied standing to legislators in such situations. "Once a bill has become law, however, their interest is indistinguishable from that of any other citizen." Harrington v. Schlesinger, 528 F.2d 455, 459 (4th Cir. 1975). See Harrington v. Bush, 180 U.S. App.D.C. 45, 68-69, 553 F.2d 190, 213-14 (1977).
. At oral argument counsel for the appellants admitted this second point. He stated, in the words that follow, that even if the Taiwan Relations Act applied to the Taiwan treaty, that would not override the President's constitutional power to break the Treaty: "Congress could not end that power by passing a law, and the President could not waive it by signing a law."
. The President's powers are there stated in the following terms:
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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls
.This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
. L. Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution 169 (1972).
. Contrastingly, Article I, Section 1, provides:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . . " (emphasis supplied).
. Since the first treaty to which the United States was a party was terminated in 1798 by an act of Congress, a variety of means have been used to terminate treaties: by statute directing the President to deliver notice of termination; by the President acting pursuant to a joint resolution of Congress or otherwise acting with the concurrence of both houses of Congress; by the President acting with senatorial consent; and by the President acting alone.
Goldwater v. Carter, 481 F.Supp. at 959 (D.D.C.1979) (footnotes omitted).
. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations . after careful consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that there were 14 different bases on which the President could terminate a treaty in the course of his executive function. The grounds identified are the following:
(1) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty;
(2) by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting states;
(3) where it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal;
(4) where a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty;
(5) where it appears from a later treaty concluded with the same party and relating to the same subject matter that the matter should be governed by that treaty;
(6) where the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time;
(7) where there has been a material breach by another party;
(8) where the treaty has become impossible to perform;
(9) where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances;
(10) where there has been a severance of diplomatic or consular relations and such relations are indispensable for the application of the treaty;
(11) where a new peremptory norm of international law emerges which is in conflict with the treaty;
(12) where an error was made regarding a fact or situation which was assumed by that state to exist at the time when the treaty was concluded and formed an essential basis of its consent to be bound;
(13) where a state has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another state; and
(14) where a state's consent to be bound has been procured by the corruption or coercion of its representatives or by the threat or use of force.
S.Rep.No.I19, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (1979).
. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320, 57 S.Ct. 216, 221, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936) (Sutherland, J.).
. The United States declared: "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position." 66 Dep't State Bull. 435 (1972).
. "The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan." 14 Weekly Comp, of Pres.Doc. 2264 (Dec. 18, 1978).
. Taiwan Relations Act, Pub.L.96-8, 93 Stat. 14 (April 10, 1979).
. See United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 229-230, 62 S.Ct. 552, 86 L.Ed. 796 (1942); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 330, 57 S.Ct. 758, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937); U.S.Const. art. 11, § 3 (the President "shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers").
. Appellees urge that the Treaty had continuing validity because of the de facto existence of Taiwan. What government — de facto or de jure — is representative of a foreign state is a question to be determined by the political department, and thus is beyond the ambit of judicial review. United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 229, 62 S.Ct. 552, 86 L.Ed. 796 (1942); Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 212-14, 11 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed. 691 (1890).
. We note that Judge MacKinnon's position also requires a reversal of the District Court. Judge Gasch's judgment forbids further action to terminate the treaty without either consent of the Senate by a two-thirds vote or a vote by a majority of both Houses of Congress. Judge MacKinnon clearly would require action by both Houses; hence Judge Gasch's approval of Senate advice and consent as sufficient is reversed without dissent.