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)
7
7
0
Although their tactics were flawed the United State Constitution Article II Section II clearly 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 advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors...
So they are correct in that they can kill any agreement made by the President. Once again this is another blatant example of the current administration's disregard for the United States Constitution.
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 advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors...
So they are correct in that they can kill any agreement made by the President. Once again this is another blatant example of the current administration's disregard for the United States Constitution.
(7)
(0)
SGT Jim Z.
I am just stating what is in the Constitution, we are not at war with them we just do not have diplomatic ties. SALT I and SALT II were ratified by the Senate and I would classify the Soviet Union as a hostile nation.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/568184/Strategic-Arms-Limitation-Talks-SALT
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/568184/Strategic-Arms-Limitation-Talks-SALT
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT)
SALT negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union that were aimed at curtailing the manufacture of strategic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The first...
(1)
(0)
SSG Stacy Carter
SGT Jim Z. it also says with the consent of congress.. The president does not have the CONSENT of congress to make a treaty with IRAN.
(6)
(0)
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Stacy Carter Staff; But the Constitution does NOT say that the President cannot PROPOSE a treaty.
In fact, the Founding Fathers would be incredibly startled if anyone had told them that that was what the Constitution of the United States of America said.
The President (through "State") negotiates and reaches agreement on what a treaty will be ONCE IT HAS BEEN RATIFIED. Until ratified a treaty is a legal nothing.
In fact, the Founding Fathers would be incredibly startled if anyone had told them that that was what the Constitution of the United States of America said.
The President (through "State") negotiates and reaches agreement on what a treaty will be ONCE IT HAS BEEN RATIFIED. Until ratified a treaty is a legal nothing.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
When the suitcase nuke goes off in one of our cities, can "We The People" arrest the idiot who allowed the deal to go through? These dealings with the Persian Empire (Iran) have some history repeating issues associated with it I think? Did we not learn anything from 1979?
(4)
(0)
SGT Tyler G.
Not to overthrow a secular democratically elected government because they aren't doing what we want and then install a corrupt alternative that we control, in turn allowing religious extremists the opportunity they needed to gain support, overthrow the corrupt government, and create a theocracy even worse for our interests than the one we overthrew?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC (Join to see) Colonel; You ask "Did we not learn anything from 1979?" - which is an excellent question PROVIDED that you rephrase it slightly so that it reads "Did we not learn anything from 2014-1988, 1988-80, 1980-79, 1979, 1979-53, 1952-41, 1941-21, 1921-1872, or ... ?".
Of course, your question was rhetorical and the answer is "Don't be silly - OF COURSE we didn't." [Or in the Wonderful World of Cynicism "Don't be silly - OF COURSE we didn't. I mean what was there to learn from a bunch of foreigners?"]
Of course, your question was rhetorical and the answer is "Don't be silly - OF COURSE we didn't." [Or in the Wonderful World of Cynicism "Don't be silly - OF COURSE we didn't. I mean what was there to learn from a bunch of foreigners?"]
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Havind political and policy disagreements are OK, and can even be healthy......BUT we should keep that stuff in house. When we deal with foreign nations, we need to provide a singular message, regardless of the divisions and arguements we have internally. The POTUS is head of state and it's HIS job to deal with foreign powers through the State Dept, NOT the Congress's. Congress's job is to ratify/approve treaties that the POTUS makes with foreign nations, and the POTUS needs to understand that any deals he strikes is by no means a done deal until Congress agrees. Both sides need to work together to get thet treaties that benefits the country and can be palatable for all sides.
(4)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Yes LTC Paul Labrador that is the way it iss upposed to work. Who is the one trying to work a deal against the correct process? Yes, the President, our Cheif Executive is tossing the process aside for his own reasons. Congress must act and put it's Constitutional authority back in play. This would not be happeing absent Obama's pronouncement he would bypass congress.
(6)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
People don't like Obama because he's a fraud and he lies. Obama NEVER properly vetted himself for office [in all likelihood because he is not constitutionally qualified]. Even Nancy Pelosi has her suspicions about his eligibility because she removed the words "constitutionally qualified" from her endorsement. Obama NEVER should have been on the ticket.
Prior to getting elected to Congress, Obama never so much as managed a payroll. Every office Obama has ever held, he obtained not by the merits of his accomplishment but by discrediting his opponents. He has nothing to offer America but empty promises that he never was committed to making good on. He says one thing and does another.
Liars come in every color... This has NOTHING to do with race.
Prior to getting elected to Congress, Obama never so much as managed a payroll. Every office Obama has ever held, he obtained not by the merits of his accomplishment but by discrediting his opponents. He has nothing to offer America but empty promises that he never was committed to making good on. He says one thing and does another.
Liars come in every color... This has NOTHING to do with race.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I think Congress was making a point to Obummer that any deals he makes have to be approved by Congress before it becomes law. Right now Obummer is running ramped with power and thinks he is above the Constitution.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGM Mikel Dawson Sergeant Major; If you take a closer look at it, you will see that the "point" that the Senators made is that they think that the Iranians are so stupid and backward that they don't know what is in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The gratuitous insult was totally uncalled for.
The gratuitous insult was totally uncalled for.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
I don't think the Iranians are stupid and I really doubt Congress does either. I believe it is a message to potus, CLEAR AND SIMPLE reminding him what he can and cannot do, which is about time.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
I didn't say that. I said Congress is reminding Husein Obama what he can and cannot do.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Iran offers to be the peacemaker between Republicans and President Obama:
(yes, I know it is satire).
(yes, I know it is satire).
Iran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama - The New Yorker
Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran offered to host talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW5 Jim Steddum Mr. Steddum; As with all really good satire, the closer to reality it is the funnier it is.
That one's hilarious.
That one's hilarious.
(1)
(0)
CW5 Jim Steddum
A friend of mine (a JAG) in Korea was just asked if it legal to drop copies of The Interview over the border ("non-lethal-effects").
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I personally believe this contact by Sen. Cotton and his colleagues is a Constitutional violation as POTUS is our countries' sole POC and face of our foreign policy. It crosses a huge line. Regardless of how you feel about our POTUS, as a member of our Armed Forces, I am disappointed by the utter lack of respect for his office and his position as our Comander in Chief. It is a devisive trend in this Congress and this Nation. The article in this link gives much detail about what kind of precident this action takes. http://www.vox.com/2015/3/12/8191209/tom-cotton-treason-logan-act-iran-letter
No, Tom Cotton did not commit treason
But did he violate the Logan Act, or even possibly the Constitution?
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
A good example why I have taken a severe withdrawal from watching politics. The two sides of the aisle have become so extreme in their division that I think they are polarized to vehemently support anything opposing the other party. That being said, I am glad that someone is discouraging the evolving stance on Iran. We drew, now violated, red lines years ago of what we would accept. You don't need above 5-7% enrichment of uranium for a peaceful nuclear energy program. So why would the IAEA continuously find 28%+ enrichment levels at their nuclear facilities. It's not weapons-grade yet, but I believe it's clear that it's heading towards that direction. If it weren't for Stuxnet they may have had enriched uranium above 60-70% now.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google