Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

Operative phrase: "without immediate Congressional approval". Yes, through various treaties, namely the U.N. Charter, Congress has delegated some authority to the Executive to negotiate and reach interim agreements with foreign powers. Keeping Congress informed of the progress is expected and politically proper, they do have an advisory power through the process. Obama should be working the prescribed process, with speed, however, he has stated that he is not working within the accepted process. He is not seeking anything that would be, now or in the future, legally binding.

I post again the Secretary of States own words: “We’ve been clear from the beginning: We’re not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan,” Kerry is stating this because it's correct, the Executive does not have the sole power to bind the country, the process (internal law) within this country requires Congressional approval, only then can the agreement become binding in internal law which then and only then can it become binding and accepted and legal in international law.

If the Executive isn't negotiating, the Congress needs to become a more active participant and utilize the Constitutional power they have within the process.

Cheers
Labour

 

Senators Insist on Role in Nuclear Arms Deals
By THOM SHANKER
Published: March 17, 2002

WASHINGTON, March 16— The ranking Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have written to the Bush administration demanding that any nuclear arms reductions with Russia be submitted to the Senate as a formal treaty, according to copy of their letter obtained today.

Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, said an agreement on ''significant obligations by the United states regarding deployed U.S. strategic nuclear warheads'' would ''constitute a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.''

While Mr. Biden and Mr. Helms are at opposite ends of the spectrum on many issues, their letter made clear that they are in full accord that the Senate's prerogative on treaties under the Constitution must be respected.

''With the exception of the SALT I agreement, every significant arms control agreement during the past three decades has been transmitted to the Senate pursuant to the Treaty Clause of the Constitution,'' the letter says. ''Mr. Secretary, we see no reason whatsoever to alter this practice.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/world/senators-insist-on-role-in-nuclear-arms-deals.html

Cheers
Labour

 

You think it's a fantasy that jailing elected officials for no other reason then dissenting opinion is not a solid reason for civil war? I promise you that if you look through history they have started for much less. Keep in mind that the military hates Barry. What makes you think they would side with a tyrant?

 

Good citation. You can read a few paragraphs of how that went down here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_...=Biden-Helms letter. Mr. Bush treaty&f=false

Now, was the letter addressed to Putin, telling them the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them, or to President Bush?

 

I agree. The talk of jailing 47 senators is ridiculous.

There is no way criminal charges would or could be brought for the letter. Suggesting one branch of government wholesale arrest and charge nearly fifty members of another branch is what happens in ****ed up third world countries, banana republics and fascistic-like states.

 

The Congress has powers, enumerated and delegated with regard to foreign affairs, and in this case chief among them those dealing with defining “offenses against the law of nations,” and those powers require an ability to know what is happening for consent to take place before an act becomes international law. To fulfill “consent of nations” the Senate must consent before the act becomes law, an executive agreement with Iran would fall under “other international compacts”:

“International law is generally divided into two branches; 1. The natural law of nations, consisting of the rules of justice applicable to the conduct of states. 2. The positive law of nations, which consist of, 1. The voluntary law of nations, derived from the presumed consent of nations, arising out of their general usage. 2. The conventional law of nations, derived from the express consent of nations, as evidenced in treaties and other international compacts. 3. The customary law of nations, derived from the express consent of nations, as evidenced in treaties and other international compacts between themselves. Vattel, Law of Nat. Prel.” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+nations

It would be an offense against the law of nations, for the emperor Obamanation to make an agreement with a foreign power that is international law before the Senate has had a chance to advisement and consent.

They have put the president on notice, they must be advised and have consent in the matter.

 

Exactly. You focus on the Constitutional language pointing out the powers that Congress has and make the point perfectly.

I posted earlier focusing on other Treaties and the process outlined where Congress grants the Executive the power to enter into interim agreements that progresses to a firm agreement to be acted upon legislatively becoming a legal binding Treaty.

The other avenue helpful in the attempt to understand the legal meaning of executive agreements and their ability to bind domestic law and international law is through court cases.

There are a few and most predictably came out of the Roosevelt years and related to the President's "recognition" of Russia in the 1930's and the domestic impact that that "gentleman's" agreement had on commerce within the United States. Roosevelt seemed to like these "executive agreements" and entered quite a few. This attempt to "go around" Congress started an Amendment process to expressly limit this confusion. It's necessity diminished after WW11 and was never ratified.

''Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.'' The limitation relevant on this point was in Sec. 2, which provided: ''A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.''

The pressure was relieved a bit in Capps, Inc. in 1953. See United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc., 204 F. 2d 655 (4th Cir., 1953), wherein Chief Judge Parker held that an executive agreement entered into by the President without congressional authorization or ratification could not displace domestic law inconsistent with such agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed on other grounds and declined to consider this matter.

Cheers
Labour

 

On the “liberal” sites quite a few are quoting “US Supreme Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936),” and it is being picked up by our “liberals” who are obviously not reading more than what is quoted on Daily Kos-monaut as an example to prove the president has imperial powers supreme with regard to foreign affairs:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=399881&p=1064830417#post1064830417

But, they are leaving out bits that confirm the letter’s claim that the next president could with a stroke of a pen end Obama’s executive agreement:

“It was not within the power of the President to repeal the Joint Resolution, and his second proclamation did not [p332] purport to do so. It "revoked" the first proclamation, and the question is, did the revocation of the proclamation have the effect of abrogating the resolution, or of precluding its enforcement insofar as that involved the prosecution and punishment of offenses committed during the life of the first proclamation? We are of opinion that it did not.

Prior to the first proclamation, the Joint Resolution was an existing law, but dormant, awaiting the creation of a particular situation to render it active. No action or lack of action on the part of the President could destroy its potentiality. Congress alone could do that. The happening of the designated events -- namely, the finding of certain conditions and the proclamation by the President -- did not call the law into being. It created the occasion for it to function. The second proclamation did not put an end to the law, or affect what had been done in violation of the law. The effect of the proclamation was simply to remove, for the future, a condition of affairs which admitted of its exercise.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/299/304

 

Agreed, the issues in each case must be looked at closely. They are narrow findings and in each where "executive agreement" was mentioned they weren't "on point" or judging the "agreement" as the main point in the case. Save one they are decisions on internal or domestic cases effected by "executive agreement" and in all Congress had granted the Executive power to act on the issue in some fashion.

Below is a link to a nice starting point for those that wish to trudge through the issue as it as progress through the court over time.

The last site would be US v. Guy Capps, and the supreme court let stand the Appeals Court decision that a contract about import limits on potatoes in 1948 was "unenforceable" because the limit on imports was the product of an "executive action" that didn't progress to the Congress for approval. It's murky as well because Congress had agreed to action on the issue but by other means:

"As the unsupported Canadian prices were lower than the supported prices in the United States, it became profitable to import Canadian potatoes despite the tariff and freight charges. Recognizing that fact, Congress authorized investigations by the Tariff Commission, under the President's direction, which might lead to imposing quantitative limitations on imports or to increasing import fees. 62 Stat. 1248-1250, 7 U.S.C. § 624, 7 U.S.C.A. § 624.

However, without resorting to that procedure, the United States acted through diplomatic channels. Its Acting Secretary of State and the Canadian Ambassador exchanged notes on November 23, 1948, purporting to consummate an executive agreement effective at once."

Capps is the last case involving "executive agreements", it was 1954.


http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html#f447

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL

The capacity of the United States to enter into agreements with other nations is not exhausted in the treaty-making power. The Constitution recognizes a distinction between ''treaties'' and ''agreements'' or ''compacts'' but does not indicate what the difference is. 388 The differences, which once may have been clearer, have been seriously blurred in practice within recent decades. Once a stepchild in the family in which treaties were the preferred offspring, the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification.

During the first half-century of its independence, the United States was party to sixty treaties but to only twenty-seven published executive agreements. By the beginning of World War II, there had been concluded approximately 800 treaties and 1,200 executive agreements. In the period 1940-1989, the Nation entered into 759 treaties and into 13,016 published executive agreements. Cumulatively, in 1989, the United states was a party to 890 treaties and 5,117 executive agreements. To phrase it comparatively, in the first 50 years of its history, the United States concluded twice as many treaties as executive agreements. In the 50-year period from 1839 to 1889, a few more executive agreements than treaties were entered into. From 1889 to 1939, almost twice as many executive agreements as treaties were concluded. In the period since 1939, executive agreements have comprised more than 90% of the international agreements concluded. 389

One must, of course, interpret the raw figures carefully. Only a very small minority of all the executive agreements entered into were based solely on the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief and organ of foreign relations; the remainder were authorized in advance by Congress by statute or by treaty provisions ratified by the Senate. 390 Thus, consideration of the constitutional significance of executive agreements must begin with a differentiation among the kinds of agreements which are classed under this single heading

Continued at the link http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html#f447

Cheers
Labour

 

2008 Candidate Senator Obama Sent U.S. Secret Emissary To Iran Telling Them Not To Negotiate With George Bush – Said Wait For Him To Be Elected….

Talk about interference!

 

No, that's what it IS, in no uncertain terms. A matter of fact, a matter of history. My assessments stand valid.

 

Again, she met with Assad with COMPLETE LEGAL consent of the State Dept., who recognized her position in the Congress.....as it did with the REPUBLICAN Senators and Congressmen who did a similar meeting with Assad. Again, the Shrub and Company WERE NOT in the preliminary stages of negotiation with Syria and we were NOT at war with them nor were they declared part of the "axis of evil" or sponsors of terrorism (that I recall). And again, the Pelosi visit was NOT an attempt to sabotage any peace attempt with Syria by the Bush administration, but to try and reach peaceful accords and exchanges....just like her REPUBLICAN counterparts did that same year!

As for this oft repeated neocon/********* wet dream about Kennedy and the KGB http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...gh-ted-kennedy-undercut-reagan-back-door-lin/

 

I never said it was a treaty, Mikey....you need to stop this lame attempt to distort and lie about past exchanges, as the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing.

Bottom line: Here's what I wrote: Bad guess. For your education: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/RossB...greements.aspx

As I said, they're "nearing" treason by attempting to sabotage on-going negotiations with a veiled threat....ONLY because there is no guarantee that the GOP will win the Presidency in 2016.

Grow up, Mikey. Your leadership has pulled yet another bonehead move in their never ending attempt to discredit/hamstring the President, and it's making them look REAL bad, as even McCain is trying to walk-back his signing the stupid thing. Hell, even Pat Buchanan is critical of the GOP 47 letter. You can't logically or factually fault what I put forth, so you blow smoke. No one is buying it, Mikey.

 

Sorry Phil, but it's a typical ploy of folk like you to try and hijack a thread towards your bigoted blatherings. As the chronology of the posts shows, YOU cannot logically or factually refute or disprove my statements regarding the GOP 47 letter beyond telling the reader that your supposition & conjecture is as valid as historical fact (hint: it's not...just ask any high school teacher who runs the debating team or his a current history teacher).

you're done here, Phil...go join Davey in Bahrain as he humps the "mud people" for dollars to rant against the Jews. I'm done with you.

 

Phil couldn't refute or disprove what I stated regarding the GOP 47 letter, so in typical white supremacist fashion he tries to hijack the thread by trying to tie in his oft topic propaganda. Sorry, but that dog doesn't fly with me, and I called him on it and subsequently IA'ed him.

Hey, if you want to entertain Phil's bigoted blathering, then start a thread were you two can rant to your heart's content. But it won't be tolerated on my thread here.

 

The media seems to be in full on rebellion against the Democratic establishment at this point. I'm writing that because Senate democrats are posed to give the Republican congress control over domestic aspects of a treaty with Iran, that shows a disconnect between them and the media on this re: Republicans.

 

translation: I provided valid, documented FACTS which completely disprove the opinion, supposition and conjecture of AlphaOmega. But instead of actually reading the content of the link and subsequently responding to how that supports my statements, he just blows smoke with Limbaugh-esque rhetoric...as if AlphaOmega's proud, willful ignorance is a substitute for historical facts.

 

As far as your conspiracy theory blog goes, it's not a matter of "cojones." I just get really annoyed with conspiracy theory types who, when challenged for documentation, post some idiotic blog or video, and want that to be taken seriously. I'm not singling you out. You are by no means the only one, I'm just telling you that your credibility continues to drop the longer you engage in that sort of foolishness. I asked for documentation, legitimate documentation, and you provided a nut job blog. So it's over. You can't back up that nonsense so you lose.

As far as your law school library link goes, it doesn't work, so I'm not interested in doing your research for you.

So why don't you explain to me in your own words what exactly do you consider "near treason" and why none of the other examples given to you in this thread of Democrats in Congress running their own foreign policy fit the non crime of "near treason?"

 

Voted against what, genius? It's in the preliminary negotiating stages and is NON-binding at present. Geez, do your homework proper before your fingers hit the keys, will ya please?

The GOP 47 attempted to interfere with the President exercising his Constitutional option...and it looks BAD for them. Hell, even Buchanan and McCain are expressing condemnation and reservations! Deal with it.

 

Troll.

Cheers
Labour

 

the opinion peace makes the same mistake that most right wing pundits make in comparing the Nicaragua meetings and Pelosi's meeting to the GOP 47 letter....and trying to downplay the FACT that the President was/is exercising his Constitutional option to start this without Congressional approval (as former SCOTUS judge O'Connor recently wrote). I addressed that with others on this thread. Also, McCain recently expressed reservations about his signing the damned thing. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...feeling-heat-over-iran-letter-express-regrets

Bottom line: it was a screw-up, and it's costing them.

 

only if we let them.

 

What's meaningless is your repeating moot points while trying to ignore the FACTS: Here, once again for your education: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/Ross...uides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

 

As in true libertarian fashion, you seek to revise legal/constitutional history to suit your personal idea of how things should work. WTF is the matter with your reading comprehension skills? Here, once again (as hope springs eternal) for your education: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/Ross...uides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

 

Big difference from preliminary, opening negotiations for non-binding agreements. And the Dems DID NOT write a letter to the Kremlin warning that any agreement wouldn't stand past the next election cycle.

You're just going in circles, son.