I think the executive has made many, many agreements without Congress.
So yeah, its word is the word of America in those cases.
That's the endgame all along. If, say, France does ratify the agreement and enforces it, the US would be hard pressed to intervene (even if it was not ratified by the US) unless they present their case with the rest of the NATO allies and/or UN.
Which is why, while there are no visible inaccuracies legally speaking on the content of the letter, the situation is generally much more complex than that.
Might be, but most of us leaning right of center hate this obamanation [abomination] of a president.
Have you read the full text, or being swayed by what the pundits say?
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand out cons utuional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of Cons ution--the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices--which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Cons ution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Cons ution have difference characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then--perhaps decades.
What these two cons utional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our cons utional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
If USA obtains the agreement, I'm sure the Repug assholes will block any funding the USA would need to finance the inspections.
That would be contrary to republican concerns of nukes. I could see the democrats blocking funds to inspect.
..but in Congress, Bibi speaks for all Jews....The president's word is not the word of America!
Nobody cares how you feel. One expects public servants (which you are not), to show a modi of respect and decorum towards the other, peer powers.
Yes I read the letter before commenting.
Do you actively try to state the most stupid thing you can possibly think of in any discussion?
You're worse than boutons.
What disrespect was there in that letter?
Criticizing the President's policy is one thing...but reaching out to foreign leaders and undermining active negotiations borders treason...
Luckly, Iranian leaders probably know how the game works better than most of the GOP knucklheads in Congress..
Guess where the Iranian leadership was educated...
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/does-...ucated-2014-10
There's no disrespect in the letter content, AFAIK, even if it does sound somewhat condescending. There's simply no reason for Congress to write that letter on an agreement that's currently being negotiated by a different branch of government and it's not yet under Congress' scrutiny. Attempting to play interloper can easily be deemed disrespectful.
There are usually peer talks going on at the same time. If Obama is only talking to their president, without some committee at the congressional level talking with their Iranian peers, then this is a waste of time.
It doesn't matter if you think it's a waste of time or not. The Executive is conducting negotiations towards building an agreement and Congress is fully aware of that. Playing interloper in those negotiations, whether for theatrics or otherwise, simply displays a disdain and lack of respect for the Executive.
It's ok for you to call the prez whatever you want: an abomination, a monkey, a n!gger, or as some other poster mentioned, a king!... However, more is expected of public servants, especially on a peer power that has to govern.
We don't know why congress did this, outside of either trusting or not, the intent in their letter.
By the tone of the letter, I suspect the president is not negotiating in good faith. I.e., he knows congress will not agree with what he is saying. Could it be this is an attempt for him to make the republicans look bad, knowing they will not ratify his work?
Could it be that the republicans are making a preemptive strike against this?
Again, we really don't know the underlying intent. We can only speculate. Politics is a dirty game.
He is a disgrace to the office. However, your interjecting racism as a reason is appalling.
Even though you see through their tact, doesn't mean it is only one sided.
Do you also count the times democrats do this?
lol no
You're just talking straight out of your ass now.
Are you speaking from experience and because of that, think it applies to me?
You're free to call the president whatever you want, including racist terms. It's your 1st amendment right.
Never claimed it's one sided.
I have experienced your talking out of your ass many times.
Why is your ear so close?
former GWB Assistant AG (of the OLC) Jack Goldsmith throws cold water on the consitutional argument in the letter:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/t...aders-of-iran/Here is the letter. Its premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our cons utional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.” It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our cons utional system or the power to make binding agreements.
The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”
This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a cons utional lesson, the error is embarrassing.
it needn't be: you broadcast your emissions
We're about 2000 miles apart, Cliffy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
