Obama wishes to bypass congress on Iran deal

[Texashiker]

This is not a treaty.

Are you attempting to argue that every agreement the executive makes with any other country must be ratified by the senate?

That would be bafflingly stupid, even for you.

When the treaty involves trade, yes, the treaty needs to be ratified.

 

[fskimospy]

When the treaty involves trade, yes, the treaty needs to be ratified.

This is not a treaty.

Your argument appears to be that congress gave the president authority to suspend sanctions in legislation it passed but that Obama needs to get their approval to use that authority, making the authority they granted pointless.

Please provide any legal support for your position whatsoever before continuing.

 

[Texashiker]

Please provide any legal support for your position whatsoever before continuing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treaty

A treaty is defined as an agreement between nations.

So yes, any agreement between obama and iran has to be ratified by the senate.

 

[K1052]

The President may enter into executive agreements and should it be required (if whatever it is needs funding) congress MAY be asked to approve. This has been precedent for the at least a century now. Congress will never strip the executive branch of this power because both parties need to use it when they have control of the branch.

Since the President has the authority under the law to impose and suspend these sanctions and the legal ability to enter into an agreement concerning foreign policy he is entirely within the law. There is nothing to see here.

 

[Texashiker]

The President may enter into executive agreements and should it be required (if whatever it is needs funding) congress MAY be asked to approve.

Proof?

 

[fskimospy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treaty

A treaty is defined as an agreement between nations.

So yes, any agreement between obama and iran has to be ratified by the senate.

You need to read your own links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#One_of_three_types_of_international_accord

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause also has a somewhat different impact on domestic U.S. law, as compared to congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international "agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[2] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:

It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent....[3]

Seriously, why do you bother linking things you obviously haven't read? I mean watching you defeat your own argument with your own evidence is funny, but doesn't it get old?

 

[Texashiker]

You need to read your own links:

Do you have any proof that says the president does not need approval of the senate?

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have any proof that says the president does not need approval of the senate?

Yes, your own fucking link that you tried to use as proof before.

You truly are the conservative cousin of McOwned.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Hey look. Another "Obama is doing what every other President has done and has been empowered to do by Congress" thread.

Yippie!

 

[doubledeluxe]

And?

The power to ratify a treaty belongs to the senate.

See my post above. It was rhetorical. I knew you had no idea what was going on.

 

[K1052]

Proof?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.

 

[Texashiker]

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.

What is it about the iran deal that you think allows obama to bypass the senate?

 

[michal1980]

This is not a treaty.

Are you attempting to argue that every agreement the executive makes with any other country must be ratified by the senate?

That would be bafflingly stupid, even for you.

Because Obama says its not a treaty...


By that logic every president has unlimited powers to make agreements with other countries... just dont call anything a treaty.

 

[K1052]

What is it about the iran deal that you think allows obama to bypass the senate?

Precedent, the laws themselves congress has passed, and the total unwillingness of the legislative branch to legally prohibit such an agreement in this case.

 

[squarecut1]

TH is angry and bitter about something. In other news, it was announced today that Pope is Catholic.

 

[K1052]

Because Obama says its not a treaty...


By that logic every president has unlimited powers to make agreements with other countries... just dont call anything a treaty.

US foreign policy has largely been executed by executive agreements since at least WWII. While most of these have eventually asked (and received) the consent of the Senate if funding is required a bunch of them have not. If Congress was really worried about this they could have legally forbidden this process but they do not because it would be impossible to effectively execute foreign policy if the president (from whichever party holds power) always had to ask the Senate for permission.

 

[Texashiker]

Precedent, the laws themselves congress has passed, and the total unwillingness of the legislative branch to legally prohibit such an agreement in this case.

Not good enough.

I want you to explain to me in detail why you think obama can skip congress on this iran deal.

We are talking about an agreement with an emerging nuclear power in the middle east. You think that is some minor issue?

 

[Jaskalas]

This post seems to come from a fundamental ignorance of how...

It comes from the tone of what I read in this topic. Which is basically "!@#$ the do-nothing Congress". Presenting a legal argument is something else entirely.

 

[ivwshane]

Not good enough.

I want you to explain to me in detail why you think obama can skip congress on this iran deal.

We are talking about an agreement with an emerging nuclear power in the middle east. You think that is some minor issue?

You just love being stupid don't you?

You were already explained to, using your own link!

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

 

[K1052]

Not good enough.

I want you to explain to me in detail why you think obama can skip congress on this iran deal.

We are talking about an agreement with an emerging nuclear power in the middle east. You think that is some minor issue?

I already have. I don't see any particular reason to do it again.

 

[K1052]

It comes from the tone of what I read in this topic. Which is basically "!@#$ the do-nothing Congress". Presenting a legal argument is something else entirely.

Legal arguments have already been presented.

The President is authorized to do this unless Congress passes legislation explicitly stripping the office of the power of sole executive agreements or requires the consent of the Senate for any deal regarding this issue specifically. Neither of these things will happen.

 

[Texashiker]

I already have. I don't see any particular reason to do it again.

I see nothing you posted that justifies excusing obamas actions with negotiating with an emerging nuclear power.

Iran is under international sanctions, and obama wishes to undermine those sanctions?

 

[K1052]

I see nothing you posted that justifies excusing obamas actions with negotiating with an emerging nuclear power.

Iran is under international sanctions, and obama wishes to undermine those sanctions?

The executive branch is empowered to negotiate with foreign nations. Iran nearing breakout makes no real difference.

International sanctions the US has most strongly pressed others for years to implement. Suspension of some or all US sanctions as part of a multilateral agreement takes care of that issue.

 

[ivwshane]

I see nothing you posted that justifies excusing obamas actions with negotiating with an emerging nuclear power.

Iran is under international sanctions, and obama wishes to undermine those sanctions?

What purpose do those sanctions hold?

 

[Texashiker]

The executive branch is empowered to negotiate with foreign nations. Iran nearing breakout makes no real difference.

What purpose do those sanctions hold?

Shane, see above.

Iran is past the point of no return. They will become a nuclear power and there is nothing we can do about it.

The issue here is a president who wishes to bypass congress. This is not the kind of president we were promised.

This is a republic, not a monarchy. The people did not elect the president, but yet he wishes to bypass our elected officials? There is something seriously wrong here.