Posted on 04/15/2015 7:49:32 AM PDT by Praxeologue
... while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of "treaties," which could be approved in some other way. Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of "Treat[ies]" and "Agreement[s]...with a foreign Power" as two distinct categories. Some scholars believe this shows that not all international agreements are treaties, and that these other agreements would not need to go through the procedures of the Treaty Clause. Instead, the President, in the exercise of his executive power, could conclude such agreements on his own. Still, this exception for lesser agreements would have to be limited to "agreements" of minor importance, or else it would provide too great an avenue for evasion of the protections the Framers placed in the Treaty Clause.
...
A more substantial departure from the Framers' vision may arise from the practice of "executive agreements." According to the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the President may validly conclude executive agreements that (1) cover matters that are solely within his executive power, or (2) are made pursuant to a treaty, or (3) are made pursuant to a legitimate act of Congress. Examples of important executive agreements include the Potsdam and Yalta agreements of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which regulated international trade for decades, and the numerous status-of-forces agreements the United States has concluded with foreign governments.
Committing the U.S. to a deal of this magnitude—concerning proliferation of the world’s most destructive weapons—should require treaty ratification. Previous Presidents from JFK to Nixon to Reagan and George H.W. Bush submitted nuclear pacts as treaties. Even Mr. Obama submitted the U.S.-Russian New Start accord as a treaty.
The Founders required two-thirds approval on treaties because they wanted major national commitments overseas to have a national political consensus. Mr. Obama should want the same kind of consensus on Iran.
But instead he is giving more authority over American commitments to the United Nations than to the U.S. Congress. By making the accord an executive agreement as opposed to a treaty, and perhaps relying on a filibuster or veto to overcome Congressional opposition, he’s turning the deal into a one-man presidential compact with Iran.
Obama can't make a treaty an executive agreement. If it's a treaty, it's a treaty.
The Senate majority should seek an injunction from the USSC preventing the implementation of this treaty before sanctions are lifted. Once Obama lifts the sanctions,restoring them will be next to impossible. The horse will have left the barn. Irreparable harm will have been done, supporting the case for an injunction.
The Obamunists have nothing but contempt — for the American people, for the Constitution and for the rule of law.
Hmmmm ... only 4 words
Could'a saved the American taxpayer a TON of money on diplomatic shenanigans
I knew from the minute I saw Corker name on this bill it was a sham.
What’s wrong with Tennessee??
Was Korea a war or a police action?
They call it whatever they want and get away with it.
giving the world’s most rabid, dangerously Anti-American dictatorship nuclear bombs (and ICBM’s to deliver them onto American cities) is NOT
“a less important international agreement”...
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!and!!
“...Mr. Obama should want the same kind of consensus on Iran.”
Obama does not care about CONSENSUS. He never has. This thing that does not exist even yet, is NOT a treaty, and at best, would be a simple agreement between Obama and Iran. Right now there is nothing other than Obama, who TRIED to go around the Congress on this, but got slapped down by a veto-proof vote.
This entire situation has no legs. It is just an attempt by Obama to add something to the WORST “legacy” in presidential history.
The article gives an interesting example of an “executive agreement” — the Yalta agreement.
Neither.
It’s a Cluster Foxtrot.
The Senate, this week, will concede to Obama, in advance, the power to exercise the treaty power and call it an executive agreement. The Senate is agreeing to the White House interpretation. After this bill is passed, the Senate won't have a legal leg to stand on when Obama signs the "executive agreement". The only way to stop this is to stop the Corker bill.
I agree, this is not clear.
This issue belongs in Court. The only way to advance our interpretation is bring an action and argue in its favor.
It doesn’t matter what it is because the Republicans in the Senate have abdicated any responsibility for dealing with it. Elections have no effect on the game. None at all more than to change some of the personnel to no effect on policies or attitudes.
I'm waiting for Cruz to say something about this. It's not like him to be silent on such an important issue.
Yes, this whole thing is a big mess that never should have happened. Regardless of what it gets called, and whatever the content is (God help us), Iran must agree to it “in public” by signing “it”...then of course, Iran will not abide by it as always. They want the bomb, and they will get it...thanks to this effort to build a legacy item and put the entire world at risk from a dangerous source of nuclear weaponry. Obama will ensure that this “agreement” is very bad and then claim how good it is.
We know better and so does Israel and the rest of the free world.
I have their referenced text in front me, and the constitutional clause reads read “Agreement OR Compact,” not regard Treat[ies]” and “Agreement[s]...with a foreign Power” as two distinct categories, as part of their discussion of Article II, Section 10.
There is no constitutional subset to a treaty with a foreign power.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ... No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power ...
The author should have included the reference to "Treaty" in the first paragraph of Section 10. It seems to have been a slip on his part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.