Kerry tells Republicans: you cannot modify Iran-U.S. nuclear deal

Reuters ^ | March 11, 2015 | Lesley Wroughton

[2ndDivisionVet]

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Republicans who control Congress on Wednesday they would not be able to modify any nuclear agreement struck between the United States and Iran.

Kerry said he responded with "utter disbelief" to an open letter to Iran on Monday signed only by Republican senators that said any deal would only last as long as U.S. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, remains in office.

"When it says that Congress could actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time is flat wrong," Kerry, who has been negotiating a deal to rein in Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "You don't have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of a country."

But Sen. Rand Paul, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016, told Kerry that any deal would need approval by Congress if it affected U.S. sanctions against Iran. Paul accused the Obama administration of trying to bypass Congress.

"The letter was to Iran but it should've been cc' d to the White House because the White House needs to understand that any agreement that removes or changes legislation will have to be passed by us," the senator said....

[kaehurowing]

How’s that Kyoto Treaty doing, John Kerry?

[skeeter]

He'll claim its not a treaty until it suits him to claim otherwise.

Its another case of 'its-a-tax-no-its-a-fee'.

[Jim Noble]

I believe that choosing Iraq as a target will be seen by history as one of the most catastrophic strategic errors since 1945, maybe since the fall of Rome.

[Gritty]

So, if Kerry is correct, could not Obama and Putin, executive to executive come to an agreement to sell Alaska back to Russia for 2 cents an acre?

Shssshhh! Don't give them any ideas.

[Jim Noble]

Good constitution.

For extra credit: Why is it the Senate, and not both Houses, and why 2/3?

[muir_redwoods]

Whats Sea Biscuit going to do if they ratify a changed agreement?

[freekitty]

The 47 Republicans did the right thing. What Obama did was sign an executive agreement like Roosevelt did in WWII. The country did not want to go to war; but the English, our ally, was getting the crap kicked out of them; so we went. The difference is Obama is helping our enemy, Iran.

[itsahoot]

as far as “in practice”, that can be debated.

Not really, it is demonstrably true. Settled Practice as some might say.

[combat_boots]

See, this is a time for Republicans to say, “Oh yeah? Watch this.”

[Star Traveler]

We haven’t had a vote on a treaty from Obama (so there is no track record for that), and from what I saw of the Netanyahu speech, and then the numbers who signed on to this letter, that tells me there are not enough votes to pass this treaty. All it takes is 34 votes to block it.

[EQAndyBuzz]

This is what kills me. You know this, I know this, everyone here knows this. I would then assume that our media knows this as well as our constitutional scholar in the White Hut.

The fact he can try to pull this off and the media go along with him says it all.

What I would do in this situation is pick a libtard commentator like Chris Matthews and start calling him a moron and that he is an illiterate and knows nothing about the US Constitution. I would scream it from the rooftops, have Rush and Sean and everyone go after him.

Force him to defend himself. Wash, rinse and repeat as necessary.

[mom.mom]

OK. Then Congress will have to modify Kerry.

[pgyanke]

Because the Senate was meant to be the States’ House.

[FredZarguna]

Head Money Cases don't constitute the entirety of case law on on this subject, and unfortunately for Kerry, none of them support his position.

Treaties require 2/3 of the Senate to ratify, and even after ratification are considered to be the same as US Federal statutes. That means they can be modified by the regular lawmaking process.

Presidential foreign policy directives and other international "agreements" which are not treaties are considered subordinate to US statute. Any part of them not in agreement with existing US law at the time they're agreed to is a legal nullity.

In particular, no part of this agreement can modify the sanctions regime in place unless Congress has already delegated the authority. It hasn't. The agreement is DOA.

[Jim Noble]

Because the Senate was meant to be the State's House

Very good, and treaties made at the Federal level bind the States, so they need to have their say.

[FreeReign]

Of course Congress cannot modify a treaty. Who the hell thinks they can? They ratify. That’s it. Does anyone read the Constitution? Or are we all Clintons, who think the rules don’t apply.

?

Nobody is talking about a treaty. They are talking about so-called executive agreement.

[i_robot73]

Correction: ...treaties made, that adhere to the Constitution,...

Else, they could enslave the U.S. to the U.N., and nothing could be done...DON’T think so.

[Vermont Lt]

Then Congress has no say.

Have you guys all gone looney?

Are you making up the rules now?

[FreeReign]

Nobody is talking about a treaty. They are talking about a so-called executive agreement.

Then Congress has no say.

Want to bet.

Congress has already passed sanctions, and Obama has already signed off on the bill. The bill included a provision that would allow the president to waive the sanctions.

So then Obama makes an "executive agreement" with Iran. The agreement waives the current sanctions on Iran.

Congress then legislates new sanctions and overrides the presidential veto.

[FreeReign]

Congress has already passed sanctions, and Obama has already signed off on the bill.

Correction: The sanctions were signed off in 1996.

Anyway, the point still stands.