6
6
0
Two days ago, Senator Tom Cotton drafted a letter to the leaders of Iran, claiming that any deal struck with President Obama had a shelf life of only two years.
Do you think this was appropriate under the current situation, both domestically as well as internationally? Was there a better way to handle this?
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last
Do you think this was appropriate under the current situation, both domestically as well as internationally? Was there a better way to handle this?
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last
Politics
Iran
Nuclear
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 48
24
24
0
This entire episode would not be happening had the President stated he was going alone and had the authority to negotiate a treaty with a foreign power and bypass the Senate. His spokesman even said that Congressional approval was a hurdle they did not want to clear. I think he said they did not have the time.
Had the President said I am negotiating this deal and will bring the treaty before the Senate for the Constitutional vote required at the appropriate time none of this would be happening.
This "going it alone" with a phone and a pen strategy is creating the disunity. All of us should be highly concerned when any president tries to sieze this much authority and power. Our oath is to the US Constitution, not the president.
This is basic root cause resolution. The Senators are only acting because of the threat of the president not to get the required vote on a treaty with a foreign government and this could be a very bad deal that gives Iran a path to a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, this is justified. I wish it was not necessary but we have a president that has little regard for the oath he took.
Had the President said I am negotiating this deal and will bring the treaty before the Senate for the Constitutional vote required at the appropriate time none of this would be happening.
This "going it alone" with a phone and a pen strategy is creating the disunity. All of us should be highly concerned when any president tries to sieze this much authority and power. Our oath is to the US Constitution, not the president.
This is basic root cause resolution. The Senators are only acting because of the threat of the president not to get the required vote on a treaty with a foreign government and this could be a very bad deal that gives Iran a path to a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, this is justified. I wish it was not necessary but we have a president that has little regard for the oath he took.
(24)
(0)
Cpl Rodney Patterson
No one ever said this was treaty, not the POTUS, not SecSate, only the some GOP in congress. "We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he (SecState) said at a Senate hearing.
Also, the Senate doesn't ratify treaties: 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”
... “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.”
source: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the-error-in-the-senators-letter-to-the-leaders-of-iran/?fb_action_ids= [login to see] 64847&fb_action_types=og.shares
Also, the Senate doesn't ratify treaties: 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”
... “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.”
source: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the-error-in-the-senators-letter-to-the-leaders-of-iran/?fb_action_ids= [login to see] 64847&fb_action_types=og.shares
The Error in the Senators’ Letter to the Leaders of Iran
Please like our Facebook page and follow Lawfare on Twitter: Follow @lawfareblog
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Cpl Rodney Patterson. Jack Goldsmith (the author of the above article) is doing what law professors typically do. They attempt to obscure things with semantics and legal language: Below is the relevant portion of the authoritative document:
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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Attempting not call this a treaty is more wordsmithing by this administration to assume more power than it has. The president may decide not to sign/execute a ratified treaty but he still has to get the vote before signature and commitment of the United States.
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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Attempting not call this a treaty is more wordsmithing by this administration to assume more power than it has. The president may decide not to sign/execute a ratified treaty but he still has to get the vote before signature and commitment of the United States.
(0)
(0)
SFC Matthew Parker
Cpl Neely,
On this topic and many others I read of the "President is going around congress", "writing laws with his pen" and "bypassing congress" and there is some small truth to that.
But the fact is the administrative orders and executive decisions being made are common and date back generations. Its only the hyper partisan nature of congress and the 24hr news cycle that make this a bigger deal than it is. The law professor is correct. Its not a treaty, it does not have the authority of international law and can be revoked by the next President.
But on the question of the letter, it was wrong. It was a mistake. The Senate sent a e-mail to their boss at 3am thinking it was a good idea and now they realize what a stupid thing they did. Just my opinion.
Congress needs to write less letters and have more face to face meetings with the President and work together towards the goal of reducing the threat from the Iranians.
Both Republicans and Democrats want the same thing, they should agree on a plan to get there.
On this topic and many others I read of the "President is going around congress", "writing laws with his pen" and "bypassing congress" and there is some small truth to that.
But the fact is the administrative orders and executive decisions being made are common and date back generations. Its only the hyper partisan nature of congress and the 24hr news cycle that make this a bigger deal than it is. The law professor is correct. Its not a treaty, it does not have the authority of international law and can be revoked by the next President.
But on the question of the letter, it was wrong. It was a mistake. The Senate sent a e-mail to their boss at 3am thinking it was a good idea and now they realize what a stupid thing they did. Just my opinion.
Congress needs to write less letters and have more face to face meetings with the President and work together towards the goal of reducing the threat from the Iranians.
Both Republicans and Democrats want the same thing, they should agree on a plan to get there.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Rodney Patterson
Cpl Jeff Neely , words are very important, but you are misreading "the words".
If you read the sentence carefully, it's clear the Constitution vests the power to ratify in the President, not the Senate.
"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties
"He (the President) shall have Power...to make Treaties
The President can bypass the Senate altogether if he wants, he could simply go through the UN and the IAEA and cut the Senate out complete. The power is his and his alone.
The fact is this is not a treaty, never has been. The GOP wants it to be so they can block it. If I were the POTUS I would cut them out completely and go through the UN.
After their traitorous letter, I wouldn't even consult with republicans on this anymore.
If you read the sentence carefully, it's clear the Constitution vests the power to ratify in the President, not the Senate.
"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties
"He (the President) shall have Power...to make Treaties
The President can bypass the Senate altogether if he wants, he could simply go through the UN and the IAEA and cut the Senate out complete. The power is his and his alone.
The fact is this is not a treaty, never has been. The GOP wants it to be so they can block it. If I were the POTUS I would cut them out completely and go through the UN.
After their traitorous letter, I wouldn't even consult with republicans on this anymore.
(2)
(0)
17
17
0
at least 47 republicans care about this country.and our nation security about damn time
(17)
(0)
Cpl Rodney Patterson
SSG Stephen Arnold we are talking about nuclear weapons, so I think, in this case, quibbling matters.
But since this is not a treaty, what you actually mean is that it's irrelevant.
But since this is not a treaty, what you actually mean is that it's irrelevant.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Rodney Patterson
The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. 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. https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm
The resolution of ratification is what's required. That resolution could say we, the Senate, approve or disapprove. But if they vote, by 2/3 to approve the RESOLUTION then the president can ratify REGARDLESS the language. Once ratified by the POTUS, it's a treaty.
The constitution requires the Senate's approval by the passage of the resolution of ratification.
It sounds like a minor detail, but an important one.
The resolution of ratification is what's required. That resolution could say we, the Senate, approve or disapprove. But if they vote, by 2/3 to approve the RESOLUTION then the president can ratify REGARDLESS the language. Once ratified by the POTUS, it's a treaty.
The constitution requires the Senate's approval by the passage of the resolution of ratification.
It sounds like a minor detail, but an important one.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
Cpl Rodney Patterson , Assume for a few seconds that I understand everything that you are saying. Then take a few more seconds to consider that we are in agreement. Then take an entire minute to realize that SSG Stephen Arnold is also correct.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Rodney Patterson
Sgt Mark Ramos, When the Senate's own website states "...The Senate does not ratify treaties", I'm not exactly sure when you mean by "correct".
And no, I don't think we are in agreement. In this case someone is right and someone is wrong. I'm 100% sure I'm right, you don't have to agree, that's fine. But this was covered IN DEPTH my first year of political sci., to be wrong means I wasted thousands of dollars.
And no, I don't think we are in agreement. In this case someone is right and someone is wrong. I'm 100% sure I'm right, you don't have to agree, that's fine. But this was covered IN DEPTH my first year of political sci., to be wrong means I wasted thousands of dollars.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
So much for the "United" States of America...
(8)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google