Reject. Do not modify, That the Senate can do.
So the Yalta Agreement wasn’t ratified by Congress?
why the long face John?
Excuse me a moment......
F U J K
Thank you.
Congress can’t modify any agreement but Congress can fund or not fund, make legal or make illegal the observing of terms of that agreement. If it is not a Treaty then it is nothing binding on Congress. It is just what 2 heads of state agreed to. Congress can’t change their agreement but Congress can determine what will be done or not done about the agreement.
Perhaps the Senators’ letter will serve to give the other so-called “partners” cause for reflection.
And King Obie waved his imperial scepter, and lo, the pesky congress was dissolved.
Unless the US Senat, by 2/3 majority, ratifies the treaty ...
WE AREN'T BOUND BY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!
There's no "severing" to do.
Elephant in the room: Why is the secret Muslim doing this behind Congress' back?
Watch us, biotch.
You break the law all the time, we will too.
Kerry, a horse, and Hillary walk into a bar
and the bartender say’s “this some kind of joke?”
The 1799 Logan Act, which says starkly:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Has intercourse with another government?? Good thing Clinton never saw that. I think this letter was a dumb move and a big waste of time.
Article 2 Section 2 does not prevent such a letter, nor does it state what steps must or must not be taken or procedure used in determining whether or not consent is to be given.
Guess that bullet in the brain he got while celebrating Christmas in Cambodia finally killed his last brain cell ?
The President negotiates. The Senate approves. 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. But it is nothing more than a suggestion or opinion until approved by the Senate. So the 47 are correct that the next president will not be bound by anything unless it is approved by the Senate. IMHO
Article 2 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...
” If the US signs an “agreement” which amounts to a treaty “
You need to learn more about civics and actually READ the Constitution.
The President CANNOT make agreements with foreign countries, and no such agreements he tries to make “amounts to a treaty”.
The people of this country are sovereign and can through their elected representatives do anything they damn well please.
There is one thing that congress can do that cannot be argued or overridden by and executive order, that is to declare war. Congress should declare war with Iran and then see if the executive agreement means anything.
It appears to me that the senate needs to stop any agreement/treaty right now by declining to concur with it.
Were they to concur with it in order to appease Obama now, I do not think a later senate has the power to go back and "unconcur" at a later date (unless of course a later president agrees to abandon the treaty/agreement).
At least that is the way I read the Consitution.