Posted on 03/10/2015 6:42:44 PM PDT by Rusty0604
In this case, I have no doubt that Iran is just repeating what US officials told them in an attempt to downplay the letter.
I posted this on another thread and in regards to a similar article ...
— — — — —
Well ... it is clear that this guy in Iran doesn’t understand the USA and how it works ... LOL ...
The article said ... “He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.”
WHAT he doesn’t understand is that the President cannot bind the nation to a treaty with another nation without it being approved by the Senate. Now, the President can take unofficial actions and do things during his term in office that are not a treaty with another nation, but that other nation should not think that these actions are in any way binding on the next President or that Congress cannot act and outlaw certain actions.
—
And then the article says ... Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law.
THE PROBLEM here is that there is nothing in International Law that can make the USA do something that was never approved by the nation in the first place. SO ... even if the President were engaging in unofficial actions, as stated above, the next President is not bound by those unofficial actions and the nation is not bound by those unofficial actions, no matter what this foreign minister thinks.
—
And then ... “The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”
VERY BRIEFLY, it is NOT an “international obligation” since it would not have been an obligation that was entered into by “the nation” in the legal manner required to do so in that nation.
—
And lastly ... The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran`s peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.
ONCE AGAIN ... there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION if it is not formally enacted in the manner required by law in that nation. Iran cannot enforce something as an “international obligation” just because it wants it to be. It has to be FORMALLY and LEGALLY ENACTED within that nation.
— — —
Iran’s Foreign Minister is “blowing smoke” and talking AS IF he actually knows what is CONSTITUTIONAL in the USA ... LOL ...
And yer a retarded, inbred, 7th century, retrobate...
Obama can’t make a treaty on his own, but what Obama and any other President can do is cause US Policy to be more favorable or less favorable to any particular country without engaging in any treaty. Of course “policy” only lasts as long as that particular President is in office.
However, he is trying to make an actual treaty with the Iranians. Time will tell if he will get away with it.
Of course he can “make a treaty” because that’s the way it’s done, that’s what the Executive Branch does. It just won’t become binding unless the Senate approves it.
The Senate always gets these treaties (to approve or not) AFTER it’s done.
SO ... what I’m saying here is that Obama can do exactly that ... “Put together a treaty with Iran.” ... but it’s going nowhere after that without the Senate signing onto it ... :-) ...
You are right, apparently my reading comprehension goes down as my age goes up. Sorry, my bad.
There are so many harmful things ObOzO can put in a treaty that become part of the Constitution, if the One could only get 60 votes in the Senate.
I hope you do understand what I was saying on the post before, and then the latest one. It sort of sounds contradictory ... :-) ...
The point is that Presidents do put together treaties (and not the Senate). So the President does the treaty, himself ... and then ... it has to be approved by the Senate before it is legally binding on us as a country.
So a President can’t “make a treaty” totally on his own, but he puts it together on his own. Then the Senate steps in with basically a yes or no vote, after the terms of the treaty are agreed upon by the other country and by the Executive Branch.
Anyway ... I think you probably “get the idea” ... :-) ...
In any case ... I really don’t see how Obama can ever get the Senate to approve any such treaty he puts together with Iran!
Yep, thanks for your patients. ;-)
Thanks. Did this guy teach a class that Obama attended?
What if he does?
Then we’re all IDIOTS for having such Senators!
We just had an election and won a majority but that doesn’t seem to do the trick.
Sometimes we just can't say what we really think. I have been there a time or two.
Well ... there may be a lot of other issues in which there can be complaints about that, but from what I saw from the Senators we elected this time around and other GOP Senators ... with regards to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech ... Obama won’t be able to get the required votes.
The title alone is priceless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.