Nobody's talking about the GOP's letter to Iran yet?

I was not questioning what the Supreme Court, may or may not have done.

I am only questioning the Obama administration comments about including Congress in the negotiations, or seeking passage of whatever deal they are shooting for with Iran.

Article 2, Section it 2, Clause 2

Treaties[edit]
Main article: Treaty Clause
The President may enter the United States into treaties, but they are not effective until ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.[9] In Article II however, the Constitution is not very explicit about the termination of treaties. The first abrogation of a treaty occurred in 1798, when Congress passed a law terminating a 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France.[10] In the nineteenth century, several Presidents terminated treaties after Congress passed resolutions requesting the same.[11] In 1854, however, President Franklin Pierce terminated a treaty with Denmark with the consent of the Senate alone. A Senate committee ruled that it was correct procedure for the President to terminate treaties after being authorized by the Senate alone, and not the entire Congress. President Pierce's successors, however, returned to the former procedure of obtaining authorization from both Houses. Some Presidents have claimed to themselves the exclusive power of terminating treaties. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, terminated a treaty without prior Congressional authorization, but Congress retroactively approved his decision at a later point. The first unambiguous case of a President terminating a treaty without authorization, granted prior to or after the termination, occurred when Jimmy Carter terminated a treaty with the Republic of China.[12] For the first time, judicial determination was sought, but the effort proved futile: the Supreme Court could not find a majority agreeing on any particular principle, and therefore instructed the trial court to dismiss the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Treaties

I would believe that it suggest that in the absence of majority in Congress, all that we have going forward is just an executive order. Which, could easily be terminated in the future by the same means.

How valid is the effort? Or is this just about optics?

 

I am still looking for a treaty without majority, 2/3. All I have found is presidents terminating treaties.

 

I believe that's what the GOP's letter meant by any agreement made with the current administration being potentially nullified "with the stroke of a pen" in the future. And, in that aspect they're not technically wrong. A law professor did point out an embarrassing error in a different part of the letter, about Congress' role in ratifying (which they don't do, vs consenting and advising, which they do do) a treaty, but made sure to mention that the error in the letter didn't invalidate its point.

Iran's response also made a good point though, in that any "stroke of a pen" nullification of a binding international agreement would constitute a material violation of international law as set forth by the UN. Now, while that is (probably, as far as I know) also true, how much of a shit the USA gives about violating international law will probably depend pretty heavily on whether we're supplying 90% of resources to the UN... or only 85%.



(numbers from butt)

 

Just like here at home the obama supporters want to disarm everybody so the UN can take over

 

Give it a rest.

 

Meh...the Dems did the same thing to Reagan with the Sandanistas. Pull your panties up and get over it.

 

Sandinistas were heroes to millions. The represented/represent the tired, the poor/the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

You are old, white, and Christian. You have no clue.

 

annoying is it?

 

Doyle?

 

He has afflicted me.

Let us clear something, I said what I said in pure jest. The statement was ridiculous, and the point.

 

I'm not a fan of this administration but it was a pretty stupid thing to do by the phants. I don't believe that now was the time to send that letter. Regardless of who is in the WH, there should be enough respect for the office of the president that you don't undercut him/her while they are in the middle of negotiations. It makes the phants look small and petty.

 

W.T.F?

 

Bible, Idiocracy, and 1984 references while calling him stupid

 

Personally, I prefer it when the politicians and different branches don't buddy up. This President has no respect for anyone else, so he deserves none in return. He get's things his way or no way.
He's the one belittling the office.

 

I suspect that you are right. That may be why Congress is not getting all bent out of shape about it. When the agreements with Iran are forged by the administration and then sent to Congress for ratification, Congress can stuff it in the trash bin. We hope. :up:

 

thats quite interesting to me tophyr! can you provide the cite or other info about that?


FWIW Article III judiciary is found today still in full force and effect:

“… saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it, and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land…” First Judiciary Act; chapter 20, page 77. September 24, 1789.

^that is pure gold!

 

Please, Mabel, stop humping my leg. This is the third time in two days. Do we need to take you to the vet to get fixed?

 

Don't you have some wills to sell at a retirement home somewhere?

 

Marbury v. Madison, i presume

 

nah thats an opinion from 1803. trophyr mentioned 1788:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/year/1788.html