North Korea reportedly hands Trump another big win by releasing US prisoners

[K1052]

No treaty is completely safe from unilateral action. But certainly those arrived at by acts of congress are much more durable than those established by executive order.

Only if Congress exercises it's constitutional power to compel the executive to abide by duly ratified treaties or remove said executive for usurping it's powers. It has so far declined to do so in modern history. Ratification would not have protected the Paris agreement or JCPOA in the current political paradigm.

 

[Atreus21]

Only if Congress exercises it's constitutional power to compel the executive to abide by duly ratified treaties or remove said executive for usurping it's powers. It has so far declined to do so in modern history. Ratification would not have protected the Paris agreement or JCPOA in the current political paradigm.

You believe that executive orders and congressionally-ratified treaties are equally easy to reverse?

 

[K1052]

You believe that executive orders and congressionally-ratified treaties are equally easy to reverse?

There is little practical difference between executive agreements and ratified treaties at this point, especially with respect to withdrawal.

 

[Atreus21]

There is little practical difference between executive agreements and ratified treaties at this point, especially with respect to withdrawal.

Do you think it's simply coincidence that (1) those treaties that had congressional approval persisted for 20 or 30 years before withdrawal, and (2) Obamacare still survives despite repeated and fervent Republican attempts to repeal it?

Furthermore, is the fact that the legislative branch fails to assert itself against executive usurpations of its power proof that they haven't the prerogative to do so?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, 30 years later.

So? It was unilaterally exited from on executive fiat alone as soon as we got a president who didn't like the terms.

Do you truly think Trump wouldn't unilaterally repeal Obamacare if he could?

Again, that's beside the point. If you want any shot at permanence, get it through congress.

Except that IS the point, going through Congress does literally nothing for permanence of these treaties as shown through multiple historical examples.

Literally. Nothing. Your recommendation to put it through Congress is pointless.

Reflexive Republican opposition doing the will of those who put them in power. Control of one branch of government doesn't grant the right to circumvent another branch except to do actions which are easily reversed.

The Iran deal is popular, it even has majority support among Republicans. They are doing the opposite of the will of those who put them in power. Then again basically every action the Republican majority has taken since last year has been against the will of those who put them in power. It's almost like they played their voters for fools or something. 😉

 

[fskimospy]

Do you think it's simply coincidence that (1) those treaties that had congressional approval persisted for 20 or 30 years before withdrawal, and (2) Obamacare still survives despite repeated and fervent Republican attempts to repeal it?

Furthermore, is the fact that the legislative branch fails to assert itself against executive usurpations of its power proof that they haven't the prerogative to do so?

You're conflating a federal law with an international treaty and they are not even close to the same thing. The president has wide authority in international affairs, he does not with domestic legislation. No point in bringing up the ACA here as the powers of the president relating to it are far, far weaker.

Again, we've already shown you repeatedly how congressional approval means nothing. What else does it take for you to accept that?

 

[K1052]

Do you think it's simply coincidence that (1) those treaties that had congressional approval persisted for 20 or 30 years before withdrawal, and (2) Obamacare still survives despite repeated and fervent Republican attempts to repeal it?

Furthermore, is the fact that the legislative branch fails to assert itself against executive usurpations of its power proof that they haven't the prerogative to do so?

You're conflating foreign policy with domestic law. Most of these agreements/treaties don't require congress to make law in order to implement since the executive has broad powers in so many areas.

Obama could not snap his fingers and rebuild the US healthcare system which was governed by countless laws and individual regulations and expend a lot of money doing so without Congress passing law.

No. Congress totally has this power, they've just decided not to assert it. Same thing with the power of the President to wage war. They've totally given up that to the executive and show little interest in clawing it back.

 

[Atreus21]

You're conflating a federal law with an international treaty and they are not even close to the same thing. The president has wide authority in international affairs, he does not with domestic legislation. No point in bringing up the ACA here as the powers of the president relating to it are far, far weaker.

"Treaties are a serious legal undertaking both in international and domestic law. Internationally, once in force, treaties are binding on the parties and become part of international law. Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ‘‘the supreme Law of the Land.’’

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf

 

[fskimospy]

"Treaties are a serious legal undertaking both in international and domestic law. Internationally, once in force, treaties are binding on the parties and become part of international law. Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ‘‘the supreme Law of the Land.’’

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf

This is irrelevant to what I wrote. Treaties are not domestic legislation, they are foreign agreements.

They are really nothing alike. Congress can pass all the laws they want but they have little to no power to constrain executive foreign policy action. On the flip side, the president is strongly constrained with domestic legislation.

In short if congress passed a law that says ‘the executive must do X’ in regards to foreign relations that law will likely be ignored or ruled unconstitutional. If congresses passes a law that says ‘the executive must do X’ in regards to domestic policy, the president must do as he’s told. That’s why the ACA is still there.

 

[K1052]

This is irrelevant to what I wrote. Treaties are not domestic legislation, they are foreign agreements.

They are really nothing alike. Congress can pass all the laws they want but they have little to no power to constrain executive foreign policy action. On the flip side, the president is strongly constrained with domestic legislation.

In short if congress passed a law that says ‘the executive must do X’ in regards to foreign relations that law will likely be ignored or ruled unconstitutional. If congresses passes a law that says ‘the executive must do X’ in regards to domestic policy, the president must do as he’s told. That’s why the ACA is still there.

Congress does have some levers at their disposal but no interest in using them. They simply don't want the responsibility.

 

[Atreus21]

This is irrelevant to what I wrote. Treaties are not domestic legislation, they are foreign agreements.

They are really nothing alike. Congress can pass all the laws they want but they have little to no power to constrain executive foreign policy action. On the flip side, the president is strongly constrained with domestic legislation.

In short if congress passed a law that says ‘the executive must do X’ in regards to foreign relations that law will likely be ignored or ruled unconstitutional. If congresses passes a law that says ‘the executive must do X’ in regards to domestic policy, the president must do as he’s told. That’s why the ACA is still there.

If DACA, Paris, or Iran had been ratified, do you think the reaction to Trump's withdrawal would be any different than it is now?

 

[fskimospy]

If DACA, Paris, or Iran had been ratified, do you think the reaction to Trump's withdrawal would be any different than it is now?

DACA wasn't a treaty so it doesn't fit in.

As for the others, no. The country in general was very supportive of both those agreements in a bipartisan way. The extreme right hated them though, and that's who Trump panders to.

 

[Atreus21]

DACA wasn't a treaty so it doesn't fit in.

As for the others, no. The country in general was very supportive of both those agreements in a bipartisan way. The extreme right hated them though, and that's who Trump panders to.

So, with popular support and those treaties being ratified by congress, you don't think there'd be multiple lawsuits and court challenges and general claims that the president clearly exceeded his authority by repealing them unilaterally?

 

[dank69]

DACA wasn't a treaty so it doesn't fit in.

As for the others, no. The country in general was very supportive of both those agreements in a bipartisan way. The extreme right hated them though, and that's who Trump panders to.

The good news is that consistently voting for the GOP has made abortion illegal so Atreus is ahead of the game because that is all he cares about.

 

[K1052]

So, with popular support and those treaties being ratified by congress, you don't think there'd be multiple lawsuits and court challenges and general claims that the president clearly exceeded his authority by repealing them unilaterally?

Only Congress itself would have standing to bring such a lawsuit and they never have.

 

[ivwshane]

So, with popular support and those treaties being ratified by congress, you don't think there'd be multiple lawsuits and court challenges and general claims that the president clearly exceeded his authority by repealing them unilaterally?

You've been proven wrong and you are desperately trying to save face by moving the goal post. Give it up, guy.

 

[IJTSSG]

They are doing the opposite of the will of those who put them in power. It's almost like they played their voters for fools or something. 😉

You're such a double talking hypocrite. You told me in another thread that by default duly elected reps always do the will of the people, no matter what.

 

[fskimospy]

You're such a double talking hypocrite. You told me in another thread that by default duly elected reps always do the will of the people, no matter what.

I didn’t say they did the will of the people no matter what, I bet if you poll people in Connecticut they will be strongly in favor of ditcvjing the EC, unlike Trump’s policies which have been among the least popular ever polled.

 

[fskimospy]

So, with popular support and those treaties being ratified by congress, you don't think there'd be multiple lawsuits and court challenges and general claims that the president clearly exceeded his authority by repealing them unilaterally?

The ABM treaty had popular support and was ratified by Congress. President Bush unilaterally repealed it.

 

[Atreus21]

The ABM treaty had popular support and was ratified by Congress. President Bush unilaterally repealed it.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, with popular support and those treaties being ratified by congress, you don't think there'd be multiple lawsuits and court challenges and general claims that the president clearly exceeded his authority by repealing them unilaterally?

That was addressed long ago-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter

If Congress wants to fight it, they can. Otherwise the President can do what he wants & the Courts won't interfere. Our current Congress doesn't want the JCPOA any more than Trump.

The voters? The GOP doesn't care about the voters other than pulling the wool over their eyes for more of that good old trickle down.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The way the news is turning out, trump got snookered by North Korea to end a nuclear program that collapsed all by itself. Let's see how the negotiations turn out and if Donald comes home to parade down Main Street in Emperor's clothing.

 

[boomerang]

The way the news is turning out, trump got snookered by North Korea to end a nuclear program that collapsed all by itself. Let's see how the negotiations turn out and if Donald comes home to parade down Main Street in Emperor's clothing.

Don't forget the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[jpeyton]

Raise your hand if you had no idea NK even had 3 US prisoners.

Or if you think it's weird Trump is heaping praise on NK for freeing prisoners they took in the first place.

It's like thanking a car thief who stole your ride and dropped it off in your driveway after driving it for 3 years.

 

[Jhhnn]

Don't forget the Nobel Peace Prize.

Don't forget to duh-vert.