Posted on 03/11/2015 9:47:21 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
I thought I said that - So Kerry is correct that the Senate cannot 'modify' the agreement, other than by getting the president to add terms the Senate will find acceptable.
Even the State Department concedes the Logan Act does not apply to legislators. It has never even been applied to individuals. It is simply a taunt.
Shouldn’t that be three asses?
John Kerry himself violated that twice. With the North Vietnamese and with the Sandinistas.
I think we both agree that an "agreement" among nations is a "treaty". One might argue whether a future repudiation of a treaty requires the support of both the President and the Senate.
But there can be little doubt that enacting a treaty initially requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.
To suggest that the Senate is committing treason, as some have done, by informing Iran of the powers of the Senate to enter into treaties, is as ridiculous as suggesting that the President engages in treason when he engages in those same dealings. The Senate is within its authority to engage in any activities it desires to inform themselves and others regarding the prudence of entering into a treaty. To suggest that the Senate must be ignorant of that to which they must consent is nonsense.
The Senate has a DUTY to the citizenry to insure that no nation is under the mistaken belief that the President can bind the U.S. without consent of the Senate.
If Iran was aware of the necessity of Senate concurrence, then no harm was done. If Iran was not aware, then the U.S. has been saved from the embarrassment of overreach by an out-of-control executive.
Perhaps Kerry believes that if he responds in "utter disbelief" that people will just take his word for it. In other words, Kerry doesn't think anyone will read the actual letter or the US Constitution. Here are both:
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2: 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;
Letter:
March 9, 2015
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution-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 Constitution 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 Constitution have different 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 constitutional 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 constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
I think since they are all elected Senators of the United States, they have the requisite authority.
Looks like they are and Lurch and OButt don't like it.
An executive agreement is nothing more than a personal pledge by the president who signs it. It does not bind the United States or any other president.
Actually, when you read the words, it seems to apply most convincingly to 0bama—who keeps acting to "defeat the measures of the United States" at every turn by conspiring against American interests with foreign governments—such as Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia . . .
Point out the article and section that says he can't. An executive agreement is between our head of state and other heads of state. It's a political agreement rather than a legal one, and no president's successor is bound by it unless he or she wants to be. A treaty, on the other hand, binds all presidents unless the treaty ends.
If the Senate doesn’t ratify it, it’s not an agreement between Iran and the United States, it’s an agreement between Iran and President Obama.
Nope.
Yeah ignored. I seem to recall when Obama went to Iraq, 2008, to interfere with Bush's foreign policy, and Franken-Lurch as a traitorous Lib got away with meddling in the 1970 'Paris peace talks' with the North Vietnamese.
Right, and this is exactly what the open letter says. Though I still think the letter was ill advised.
No one word, er letter wasted
Excellent !
From the William C. Blakley Law Library:
“The United States often enters into agreements with other countries. Two types of agreements are treaties and executive agreements. The United States Constitution art. 2, § 2 dictates that treaties are international agreements that have received the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate and have been ratified by the President. There are two types of treaties. Bilateral treaties are agreements made by two countries. Multilateral treaties are agreements made by three or more countries. As chief executive of the United States, the President has the authority to create international agreements with other nations without Senate approval. These international agreements are called executive agreements.”
There does not need to be an Article and Section in the Constitution which states the executive is NOT empowered to do a certain thing.
Our Constitution is structured in such a way that if a particular branch of our government is not empowered to do some certain thing, then that branch simply does not have the power to do that certain thing. It is not necessary for the Constitution to declare that it lacks that power.
Nothing there that says Obama and Kerry cannot get advice from the Senate. And those two clowns sure do need adult supervision.
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.