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
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.
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 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.