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: United States
Decision Date: 1979-11-30
Citations: 617 F.2d 697
Docket Number: No. 79-2246
Parties: Senator Barry GOLDWATER et al. v. James Earl CARTER, President of the United States et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 617
Pages: 697–740

Head Matter:
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 Dee. 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.
Opinion for the 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 MacKIN-NON.
Circuit Judge Leventhal participated in the consideration of this case but died before the decision and judgment were announced.

Opinion:
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 Pesca-dores, 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."
t
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 Amendment," 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 nonjusticia-ble 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- ríes 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 ap-pellees 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, 473-76, 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 ease 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.
Ill
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.
WRIGHT, Chief Judge, with whom TAMM, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring in the result:
We agree that the judgment and opinion of the District Court must be vacated and that appellees' complaint must be dismissed. Because we believe the appellees lack standing, we reach no other issue.
Appellees are nine Senators and sixteen members of the House of Representatives. They assert that the President's unilateral termination of this country's Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of China is illegal, and that they have Standing to litigate this issue because the President's action personally injured them in fact by depriving them of their right to vote for or against termination.
I
Both Article III of the Constitution and the demands of prudent judicial administration bar lawsuits by parties who are only generally and indistinguishably offended by alleged illegal acts of government. The proper redress for such offenses is political, not judicial. The courts' role begins only where a party alleges " 'such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf." Worth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2205, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975), quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) (emphasis in original).
The essence of the claim in this case is that unless the federal courts intervene the President will terminate the Mutual Defense Treaty in a manner that violates the constitutional restrictions on his powers. All Americans have a stake in seeing that their leaders act according to the constitu tional scheme. The question here is whether these plaintiff-appellees have a specific personal stake in the outcome of the case.
Appellees gain no particular stake simply by being members of Congress. This court has made clear that a legislator "receives no special consideration in the standing inquiry." Reuss v. Balles, 189 U.S.App.D.C. 303, 308, 584 F.2d 461, 466 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 997, 99 S.Ct. 598, 58 L.Ed.2d 670 (1978). The interests of an elected representative do not necessarily differ from those of his constituents. In fact, courts could logically afford legislators even less consideration on standing than they afford other citizens, since the legislator's position gives him special access to the political process through which general constitutional grievances should find redress. See Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 220-227, 94 S.Ct. 2945, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974). Thus, to sustain their lawsuit plaintiff senators and congressmen must demonstrate a "distinct and palpable injury" to themselves. See Warth v. Seldin, supra, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197.
Although the courts have fashioned various verbal formulas to describe the Article III jurisdictional requirement of case or controversy, the core concern has remained single and unquestioned: that "the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 101, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1953, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). The verbal formulas help in focusing on the practical question underlying the general principle — the question of the nature and circumstances of the specific injury alleged. Thus, the plaintiff must show an "injury in fact," Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, supra, 418 U.S. at 227 n.16, 94 S.Ct. 2945, that "fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant," and not to "the independent action of some third party not before the court," Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1926, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976), and that is "likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." Id. at 38, 96 S.Ct. at 1924. However many "prongs" comprise the test, the question is specific and factual: Has the plaintiff identified the proper defendant, the adversary who has dealt him distinct injury?
In addressing that practical question in this case, we must accept as true the material allegations of the complaint. Warth v. Seldin, supra, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197. We therefore assume as a matter of constitutional law that President Carter was required to obtain consent from either two-thirds of the Senate or a majority of both Houses before giving notice of termination of the Treaty. The most distinct injury alleged is that the President has prevented the appellees from voting on treaty termination.
The question of standing where a legislator claims injury to his lawmaking role is not new to this court. Although there are "no special standards to be employed in analyzing legislator standing questions," Reuss v. Balles, supra, 189 U.S.App.D.C. at 307, 584 F.2d at 465, we have developed a strict approach to evaluating the unique type of injury that arises when a legislator challenges Executive action. Along with the other circuits that have faced the issue, we have required congressional complainants to allege a precise injury. The only case in which we have actually held that an individual legislator had standing to contest Executive action illustrates the nature of the requisite injury.
In Kennedy v. Sampson, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C.Cir.1974), a senator sought to challenge the President's pocket veto of a bill passed by overwhelming majorities of both Houses. We granted Senator Kennedy standing on the theory that the President's action impaired Congress' role in the constitutional scheme of lawmaking, and thus indirectly impaired the effectiveness of the Senator's individual vote. Under the paradigm of injury emerging from Kennedy, if the legislature manifests its will through final legislative action, and if the Executive nullifies the effect of that legislative action, a legislator whose vote contributed to the legislative action will have standing. The injury derives from the injury to the legislature, and becomes personal to the individual congressman-plaintiff.
We decided Kennedy before the recent Supreme Court decisions that have considerably tightened standing requirements. E. g., Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., supra; Warth v. Seldin, supra. In the light of these cases, we have held that Kennedy does not confer standing where a legislator claims injury to his general effectiveness as a lawmaker as he subjectively perceives it, Harrington v. Bush, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 45, 66-69, 553 F.2d 190, 211-213 (D.C.Cir.1977); Metcalf v. Nat'l Petroleum Council, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 40-41, 553 F.2d 176, 185-186 (D.C.Cir.1977), or even where a legislator claims the Executive has injured the effectiveness of a particular past vote by failing to properly administer the specific legislation as enacted. Harrington v. Bush, supra, 180 U.S.App.D.C. at 69-70, 553 F.2d at 213-214. Most to the point here, we have declined the occasion to confer standing where a legislator alleges injury to an opportunity to cast a specific future vote. See id. at 66, 553 F.2d at 211; Reuss v. Balles, supra, 189 U.S.App.D.C. at 308-310, 584 F.2d at 466-468. We have required the plaintiff legislator to show that the challenged Executive action has nullified a vote already taken by preventing it from ever taking its intended legal effect.
The Supreme Court's pronouncements on standing compel this view. As we have noted, where a legislator alleges Executive impairment of the effectiveness of his vote, his injury can only be derivative. He cannot suffer injury in fact unless Congress has suffered injury in fact. Congress suffers no injury unless the Executive has thwarted its will; and there is no such will to thwart unless a majority of Congress has spoken unequivocally. Unless Congress has taken all final action in its power to exercise its constitutional prerogative, any injury an individual legislator suffers may find its source not in the President, but in his colleagues in Congress. Where Congress itself, and not the Executive, renders an individual legislator's vote ineffective, the courts have no role. Harrington v. Bush, supra, 180 U.S.App.D.C. at 69, 553 F.2d at 214; Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307, 1311 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1935, 40 L.Ed.2d 286 (1974).
In this case, neither House has ever taken final action to voice disapproval of the termination of the Treaty. In holding that appellees had standing, the District Court accepted their argument that congressional action on the termination effectively amounted to a confrontation with the President. The majority now asserts that Congress has done all it can practically do— short of obtaining judicial relief — to prevent the President from unilaterally terminating the Treaty. But the actual sequence of events in Congress belies these positions. As we demonstrate below, Congress was well aware of strong legislative measures within its means for expressing disapproval of the termination. It simply did not take those measures.
Appellees point to, and the District Court relied on, such congressional actions as the Dole-Stone amendment and the vote to restore the original language drafted by Senator Harry Byrd, Jr. as Senate Resolution 15. Only the Byrd amendment has even the pretense of being final legislative action disapproving the termination of this particular treaty. Yet Senator Harry Byrd, Jr. stated himself that the resolution would have no binding legal effect on the President and that it was meant to express neither approval nor disapproval of the President's actions. Whether the resolution would have been prospective or retrospective in effect remains in doubt. Ten pages of the Congressional Record of June 6 are devoted to a discussion among the Senators about what effect the Byrd resolution as written would have. Senator Church and, on the next day of discussion, Senator Goldwater introduced conflicting amendments to clarify the resolution. But the Senate adjourned without deciding which version to adopt.
Moreover, whatever the potential effect of the resolution, the Senate never actually voted to approve it. As a matter of textbook parliamentary procedure, the vote on which the District Court so heavily relied in reversing itself on standing was simply an interim procedural vote to choose the language of the resolution to be voted on. Even those Senators who had voted for the Byrd amendment remained free to vote against the resolution in any final action. Indeed, it was to give the Senators an opportunity to reflect on the consequences of their action that the resolution was taken from the floor.
Consideration of the resolution ended when Senator Goldwater and his colleagues failed to agree on legislative language for the Senate to vote on. On the Senate floor on November 15, Senator Robert Byrd, the Majority Leader, expressed his desire for an "up-and-down vote" on the issue, but after extensive discussion proved inconclusive, he proceeded to other business. The question of Senate Resolution 15 has never returned to the floor. Thus the President himself has not nullified the effect of any vote appellees have actually cast, nor has he thwarted the will of Congress in the special sense our cases demand. Congress has not suffered the requisite injury, and so neither have appellees. Any harm they have suffered can be "fairly traced" to their minority position in the legislature, and to the vagaries of politics. Surely courts cannot be expected to manage the calendar of the United States Senate.
Congress as a body has chosen not to confront the President directly on the treaty termination. Denied that confrontation by political reality, appellees now turn to this court. But as we have said, relief for political injury must be political, and the opportunities for relief have been ample. Appellees have always had the legal, if not the political, power to obtain passage of a bill directing the President to cancel notice of termination of the Treaty, or at least declaring Congress' belief that the Treaty remained in effect absent legislative approval of its termination. Had appellees done so, we might have been presented with a different case. To be sure, under standing doctrine the availability of remedies outside the courts does not of itself preclude jurisdiction, where the plaintiff has shown sufficient injury. Metcalf v. Nat'l Petroleum Council, supra, 180 U.S.App.D.C. at 44 n.29, 553 F.2d at 189 n.29. But in this case appellees' apparent political inability to "exhaust" their legislative remedies rebuts their very allegation of judicially cognizable injury, as well as its source in the President's actions.
II
Article III of the Constitution permits federal courts to hear only eases in which the adversariness of the parties creates a sharpened factual controversy. This is, of course, the root of the standing doctrine. But the standing doctrine also includes a principle of "judicial self-governance," without which the courts would end up deciding "abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights." Warth v. Seldin, supra, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. at 2206. This second, prudential, aspect of the standing doctrine is especially significant in this case.
The issue here is whether or in what manner Congress and the President share the power to terminate treaties. For over 200 years, through bargaining, compromise, and accommodation, these popularly elected branches of our government have in fact shared the task, without the help or need of the courts. There has never been a single, settled method of termination. 5 G. Hackworth, Digest of International Law 330 (1943). Plaintiffs and defendants here have offered competing interpretations of how the long sequence of treaty terminations in our history was accomplished. Whether or not the historical record supports either party's substantive constitutional argument — and we express no views on this — it does show that when Congress wants to participate directly in a treaty termination it can find the means to do so. Thus Congress had initiated the termination of treaties by directing or requiring the President to give notice of termination, without any prior presidential request. Congress has annulled treaties without any presidential notice. It has conferred on the President the power to terminate a particular treaty, and it has enacted statutes practically nullifying the domestic effects of a treaty and thus caused the President to carry out termination. If Congress can do this, it can pass a resolution objecting to termination of a treaty if it wishes to do so. A President is likely to pay heed to such dis approval, in which event no court need intervene.
Moreover, Congress has a variety of powerful tools for influencing foreign policy decisions that bear on treaty matters. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it can regulate commerce with foreign nations, raise and support armies, and declare war. It has power over the appointment of ambassadors and the funding of embassies and consulates. Congress thus retains a strong influence over the President's conduct in treaty matters.
As our political history demonstrates, treaty creation and termination are complex phenomena rooted in the dynamic relationship between the two political branches of our government. We thus should decline the invitation to set in concrete a particular constitutionally acceptable arrangement by which the President and Congress are to share treaty termination. This principle of prudence especially counsels against judicial intervention in a case like this, where Congress has taken no final action to make known its views on the termination of a particular treaty. Were a President to attempt to unilaterally break a treaty vital to the interests of the nation, without sound reason and against the wishes of the great majority of citizens, congressional representatives, by any means they have already used or by those they may yet design, can ensure that the voice of that majority reaches the President.
Ill
Managing the foreign relations of a great nation is an intensely political undertaking calling for the greatest skills and the exercise of the most informed judgments, for the stakes are high. It is an area in which judges have no special competence or experience. Unless a case or controversy fully satisfying the constitutional command is presented for adjudication, a court should stay its hand. Since the constitutional command is not satisfied in this case, in our judgment it is appropriate that the court dismiss it without more. We would do so. To come to the same result after a journey through an uncharted judicial wilderness, dropping hints or attempting to set in concrete how future foreign relations cases might be decided, invites additional unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, judicial incursions into the area.
. 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 assert-edly 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 —, 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 latér 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.119, 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.
. Since we assume, in accord with the complaint and the District Court decision, that either method of consent is acceptable, we need not distinguish the standing problems of appel-lee members of the House of Representatives from those of appellee senators.
. The complaint implies two other injuries. One which appellees do not press on appeal is the injury to their "sworn duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitutional allocation of powers to the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government." Complaint at 3. Since this injury is nothing more than a general grievance about alleged illegal conduct, it affords no basis for standing. The other injury is that alleged by Senator Thurmond and former Senator Curtis — the alleged nullification of their original 1955 votes to consent to ratification of the Treaty. The District Court rejected standing on that ground, and we agree. The 25-year life of the Treaty has given substantial effect to those 1955 votes, and so the President cannot be said to have rendered them "a direct and immediate nullity, as if [they] had not cast the vote at all." Harrington v. Bush, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 45, 66, 553 F.2d 190, 211 (D.C.Cir. 1977).
The allegation that the President has impaired Congress' right to be consulted on the treaty termination is really inseparable from the allegation of injury to opportunity to vote.
. E. g., Harrington v. Schlesinger, 528 F.2d 455, 459 (4th Cir. 1975); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307, 1315 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1935, 40 L.Ed.2d 286 (1974).
. In Mitchell v. Laird, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 344, 488 F.2d 611 (D.C.Cir.1973), we stated that 13 congressmen had standing to seek a declaratory judgment that our participation in the Vietnam war was illegal, on the ground that the relief requested would "bear upon" their duties as congressmen to pass appropriations, impeach officials, and perform other legislative acts. But in the light of Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 215 n.5, 94 S.Ct. 2945, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974), that statement was only dictum. Moreover, its only remaining significance in this circuit lies in its repudiation in Harrington v. Bush, supra, note 2, 180 U.S.App.D.C. at 64, 553 F.2d at 209. The flaw of Mitchell's "relevancy" standard is that it ignores Article Ill's demand of proof of a distinct injury.
Two other cases deserve note here. In Edwards v. Carter, 580 F.2d 1055 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 907, 98 S.Ct. 2240, 56 L.Ed.2d 406 (1978), we proceeded to the merits of a congressmen's suit against the President. But there we chose not to address the standing issue at all, since, under constraints peculiar to that case, rejection of the plaintiffs' claim on the merits was the most efficient disposition. In Pressler v. Simon, 428 F.Supp. 302 (D.D.C. 1976), aff'd mem. sub nom. Pressler v. Blumenthal, 434 U.S. 1028, 98 S.Ct. 758, 54 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978), a three-judge court granted a congressman standing on the basis of alleged impairment of future voting rights. But the Supreme Court's summary affirmance of the three-judge court's rejection of the plaintiff's claims may well have been predicated on a lack of standing. Pressler v. Blumenthal, 434 U.S. 1028; 1029, 98 S.Ct. 758, 54 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., concurring).
. Kennedy explicitly denied that the Senator's standing derived from any injury to his prospective right to vote to override a presidential veto. Kennedy v. Sampson, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 196 n.13, 511 F.2d 430, 434 n.13 (D.C.Cir. 1974). Moreover, our decision there relied heavily on Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939), where state senators who had voted against ratification of a constitutional amendment gained standing to challenge the legality of the lieutenant governor's tie-breaking vote in favor of ratification. We stressed that in Coleman the legislators' votes would have had objective legal effect absent the challenged executive action.
In Harrington v. Bush, supra note 2, we inferred from Kennedy some concern for the future override vote. But we noted there that in Kennedy the prospective vote had borne a unique nexus to the nullified past vote. The two votes were steps in a single legislative act. 180 U.S.App.D.C. at 66, 553 F.2d at 211. Thus, even if in Kennedy we did perceive some important injury to the prospective vote, the injury was wholly dependent on the harm to the past vote. No such nexus exists here. The only arguably relevant past vote is the 1955 vote to consent to ratify the Treaty. But that vote has never been nullified, see note 2 supra, nor is it part of a single legislative act along with the prospective vote on treaty termination.
The majority's superficial summary of the congressional standing cases within this circuit blurs the clear distinctions those cases have created. It is true, as the majority notes, that a congressman does not suffer a distinct injury when the administration fails to properly carry out a law passed by a Congress of which he was a member. See majority op. at note 7. But that situation is clearly distinct from the one in Kennedy, in which the President's action prevented a final congressional action from ever taking its intended legal effect in the first place. There is thus little logic in the majority's view that a claim of nullification of a past vote alone is a poor ground for standing, because that was precisely the ground on which Kennedy itself relied. In rather glibly asserting that the nullification of an opportunity to vote creates standing just as readily as does the nullification of a past vote, the majority simply ignores a good deal of the reasoning that pervades this line of cases.
. One other possible basis of standing has no application here — where a majority of Congress approves a lawsuit by expressly authorizing a member or a committee to represent it in the courts. See United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 179 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 205, 551 F.2d 384, 391 (D.C.Cir.1976); Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 185, 498 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C.Cir.1974).
. The majority's conclusory assertion that "[n]othing in Kennedy v. Sampson, nor in the logic of what constitutes injury in fact, justifies such a limitation," majority op. at note 12, is bewildering in its failure to acknowledge this principle.
. The Dole-Stone amendment sought only consultation with the President and did not ask for a congressional vote on termination of the Treaty.
. Senator Harry Byrd, Jr. said that he had no desire to "rewrite history." 125 Cong.Rec. S7048, col. 2-3 (daily ed. June 6, 1979).
. Id. at S7054-S7064. The remarks of Senator Exon illustrate this confusion:
I, for one, supported the Byrd amendment this afternoon, with the assumption and the understanding in my mind, that I was not resurrecting the problem before the Senate with respect to the problems with Taiwan. I thought I was voting for the future . Yet, I have been here now for about 4 hours and I am beginning to wonder just what is going on, on the amendment that I voted for.
Id. at S7060.
. In order to ensure that passage of the resolution would not be construed by the courts as disapproving the President's termination of the Treaty, Senator Church introduced the following amendment:
The provisions of this Resolution shall not apply with respect to any treaty the notice of termination of which was transmitted prior to the date of this resolution.
Id. at S7061. He explained his position as follows:
Now, if the proponents really are serious when they say that their purpose is not to exhume the question of Taiwan and the treaty that the President has given notice he will terminate — then all they have to do is accept this language. Then there can be no question either for a court to pass upon, or for anyone to misconstrue, for we will be clearly making this sense of the Senate resolution prospective .
Id. at S7061.
Twelve days later, Senator Goldwater proposed the following substitute for the Church amendment:
(1) The provisions of the resolution shall not be construed to approve or disapprove of the termination of the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of China, such termination not having been submitted to the Senate or Congress for approval prior to the date of adoption of this resolution, and (2) nor shall anything in the resolution be construed to reduce or prejudice any of the constitutional powers of the Senate.
Id. at S7862 (daily ed. June 18, 1979).
The Senate was fully aware of the relation of its actions to the suit in District Court. Senator Goldwater explained Judge Gasch's June 6 order to the Senate, id. at S7033-S7035 (daily ed. June 6, 1979), and provided each Senator with a summary of the order before the vote on the Byrd amendment. Senator Church read relevant portions of the order during the debate, id. at S7058, and printed the order in its entirety in the Congressional Record. Id. at S7062-S7064.
. On June 21, 1979 the Senate resumed consideration of Resolution 15, see id. at S8189-S8195 (daily ed.), but took no action. Later that day the Majority Leader exercised his parliamentary authority to return the resolution to the calendar. Once again, after oral argument was heard in this court, the Senate debated the resolution, but again took no action. Id. at S16683-S16692 (daily ed. Nov. 15, 1979). As explained by Senate Parliamentarian 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.
. Senator Church expressed his opinion that, in voting on the Goldwater amendment, the Senate would "be voting on whether to reopen the past." Id. at S7862 (daily ed. July 18, 1979). Calling this "an action fraught with mischief," he suggested that the Senate be given "an opportunity to reflect upon this before pressing it to a vote." Id. The Senate immediately proceeded to the next order of business.
. Between November 13 and November 15, the Majority Leader met several times with Senators Goldwater, Harry Byrd, Church, and Javits in an attempt to attain agreement on legislative language concerning treaty termination. No agreement was reached. See id. at S16684 (daily ed. Nov. 15, 1979) (statement of Senator Robert Byrd).
. Id.
. Even if an alleged injury to a prospective vote were judicially cognizable, the complaint merely states, "Should the matter be placed before them as required by law, certain Plaintiffs, as well as many of their colleagues in the Congress, would object" to the termination of the Treaty. Complaint at 12. Thus there is no allegation that all plaintiffs would vote against termination, nor can we tell which particular plaintiffs would do so. The uncertainty on this point makes appellees' injury yet more speculative.
. The majority opinion attempts to circumvent the requirement of final action by asserting that since the President never formally submitted the treaty termination to Congress, he has already dealt them a distinct injury — depriving them of their vote within the prescribed constitutional scheme. There may well be, as the majority opinion suggests, practical political differences between voting on a treaty termination submitted by the President and initiating an independent resolution within Congress. The very point, however, is that those differences are political, not legal. Moreover, the specific mode by which the President and Congress interact is a political question in which the courts have no say. See Holtzman v. Schlesinger, supra note 3, 484 F.2d at 1309; Orlando v. Laird, 443 F.2d 1039, 1043 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869, 92 S.Ct. 94, 30 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971).
. We offer no opinion whether two-thirds of the Senate could accomplish the same goal by expressly conditioning its original approval of the formulation of a treaty on its power to veto any attempt by the President to terminate the treaty by a similar two-thirds vote.
. The defendants argued in Kennedy that the Senator had no standing because Congress could pass the pocket-vetoed bill anew and time the passage to preclude a pocket veto. We rejected that argument, but only because that remedy essentially involved beginning an entirely new legislative action. Kennedy v. Sampson, supra note 5, 167 U.S.App.D.C. at 197-198 n.17, 511 F.2d at 435-436 n.17. Here, the alternate remedy would be a single legislative action which Congress has never taken.
. Appellees identify some 55 treaties or provisions of separate treaties that the United States has terminated. By their reckoning, 52 have been terminated with express or implied legislative approval (39 at the initiative of the Congress) and only three treaties-have been terminated by unilateral presidential action. Appel-lees' brief at 57-62. Appellants for their part have found 26 instances of treaty termination actions by the President. They claim that in 13 of those instances the President acted without the participation of the Congress. Appellants' brief at 53-57.
What is significant for our purposes is the fact, acknowledged by both parties, that congressional involvement in the treaty termination process has taken a variety of forms. See appellants' brief at 56-57; appellees' brief at 57-62.
. E.g., J.Res. of Jan. 18, 1865, 13 Stat. 566 (1866) (Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 with Great Britain); J.Res. of June 17, 1874, 18 Stat. 287 (1875) (Commercial Convention with Belgium); Act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 641 (Amity Treaty of 1871 with Great Britain); see Ropes v. Clinch, 20 F.Cas. 1171 (C.C.S.D.N.Y.1871) (No. 12,041).
. E.g., Act of July 7, 1798, 1 Stat. 578 (1861) (Treaty of Alliance of 1778 with France).
. E.g., Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Pub.L. No.87-195, 75 Stat. 424 (Commercial Convention of 1902 with Cuba).
. E.g., Tariff Act of July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 151, ch. 11 § 3 (Commercial Convention of 1850 with Switzerland); see Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194, 8 S.Ct. 456, 458, 31 L.Ed. 386 (1888) ("a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation" and so may be superseded just as a statute).
. As the majority concedes, the heart of its reasoning is that even if Congress does take a final vote disapproving treaty termination, the President might well ignore it and persist in carrying out the termination. Thus, the majority asserts, the appellees' injury is already manifest.
Even if the President does now take such a stand, the perspective of this 200-year-old, continuing political controversy suggests that we view that stand as a bargaining position which cannot confer standing where it would not otherwise exist. Since there has been no definitive congressional vote disapproving termination, a large enough number of congressmen may well agree with the President's view of the constitutional issue as to prevent any legal controversy. Similarly, no matter how resolute the President's position appears, we cannot know if he would maintain it in the face of an unequivocal vote of disapproval by Congress.
Thus we see how the standing issue in this case may be cast as a ripeness issue. The President's alleged position may portend a true legal controversy, but it remains part of a chain of contingency too attenuated to confer standing. Compare Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967).