That's right Mech - and those treaties were instruments of international law, something the founders thought was quite important. Many of them would be properly called "international lawyers" if they were around today doing the same things they were up to back then.
Rooster, the problem isn't the outcome - it's the lack of popular support required for the outcome. Congress is a failure at representing people (I believe something close to a majority believe it should be disbanded), and it is not effective at checking executive power, even for unpopular measures. It is even more limited in wars, where the President asserts powers that defy Congress's power to defund or pass laws to regulate executive conduct.
That's why we need a constitutional change to deal with war powers - we need a process that guarantees the Nation's sacrifice only comes with the unambiguous support of the people.
1. I wouldn't necessarily equate treaties with the North American Indians as international law. I have no idea how many of those treaties were actually ratified by the Senate anyway. Most of the ones used as legal instruments today came about after the Founders were long gone. They were also not treated as though they were written in stone forevermore. I dislike how some people seem to think treaties can never be revoked.
2. Our Govt has been sending troops various places since our Founding. I really don't want to tie the hands of our military even more because we can't seem elect decent leaders.
