Let me get this straight! Anytime the U.S. has an Election

[Liberalynn]

all agreements made by the previous office holders are null and void according to the 47? If I were any other world power, friend or foe of the United States, I would therefore refuse all long-term negotiations with the U.S. as they would no longer be honored through the next election cycle. Will this hold true for a certain trade deal that is being negotiated as well?

How about this on a domestic scale? Any laws that actually managed to get passed between a sitting President and a sitting congress are only guaranteed valid, until the next election cycle as well. Now that could get interesting not to mention confusing.

Hey nice precedent you're setting there GOP asshats!

[FBaggins]

1. Not quite

The argument is that international agreements that have the force of law within the US are called treaties and need to ratified by the Senate. Other agreements (absent an implementing law) are little more than agreements between that President and the other parties.

One President doesn't have the ability to bind the next one (again... absent laws or treaties).

That doesn't mean that all prior agreements are "null and void"... just that the next President can ignore them by changing the administration's policy.

If I were any other world power, friend or foe of the United States, I would therefore refuse all long-term negotiations with the U.S. as they would no longer be honored through the next election cycle.

No... you would just insist that those deals be formal treaties that get ratified.

Will this hold true for a certain trade deal that is being negotiated as well?

NAFTA (as an example) is a treaty and was ratified by the Senate. The President cannot ignore it.

How about this on a domestic scale? Any laws that actually managed to get passed between a sitting President and a sitting congress are only guaranteed valid, until the next election cycle as well.

Nope. He can't ignore existing law (not that President's don't on occasion try).

[Liberalynn]

3. Ignoring the terms of an agreement would have the same net result.

The other side doesn't get what they were promised. It doesn't matter whether that's officially acknowledged or not.

This happened with Yalta. We promised to help the U.S.S.R. economic help to recover from the damage of World War II, if they stayed in the war against Japan after Germany was defeated. When we knew we had the bomb and didn't need them to defeat Japan after all, so they got virtually squat. While it may not have caused the Cold War, it sure as hell didn't help.

And lawmakers in the U.S. rarely face actual consequences for failing to enforce laws.

[FBaggins]

4. It would for that one agreement

Not for all agreements.

And, like it or not, that's the way our system works. If you want "the other side" to "get what they were promised"... then the promise has to be fulfilled during your term of office (while you have the authority to honor it - and that assumes that honoring it is within your power), or you need to make the promise in a legally binding way (either by getting Congress to pass a law, or by negotiating a treaty and getting the Senate to ratify it).

We don't have kings in this country.

[Liberalynn]

7. I'm not saying we should have kings

or that the Senate doesn't have to ratify it.

What I am trying to say and I admit badly is that to me I see no point in making any agreements then with our country or any country for that matter if their political opposition parties are just going to come in and overturn it. Just because the Republican may have the legal right to say they will ignore any agreement Obama makes with Iran before he has even made an agreement with Iran, doesn't make it ethical or smart. In fact it creates bigger enemies out of the people you screw over, and makes even your allies think twice as to whether they can trust our Country's word. There's a reason we have for the most part left our political differences at our own borders before.

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. ^^ This here ^^ nt

[jberryhill]

2. As you will recall...

There was a considerable issue here in relation to what the President should or should not have done by executive order in relation to recognition of same sex marriages among federal employees or openly gay members of the military.

Any *treaty* to be effective must be approved by the Senate.

There are a number of foreign policy understandings which are not reduced to treaties and which are typically carried over, and sometimes not, by successive administrations.

But that's not the same thing as saying "Any laws that actually managed to get passed between a sitting President and a sitting congress are only guaranteed valid, until the next election cycle as well", because in that example, you have something which did pass Congress and was signed by the President.

Any foreign policy commitment not reduced to a ratified treaty or legislation, or any executive order, is revocable by the current or successive president.

I would imagine that we will apply the same deference to the executive branch in relation to the ongoing TPP treaty negotiations, but my imagination is more limited than that......

-----
A bipartisan group of 60 Senators led by U.S. Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Manufacturing Caucus, today urged Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to address foreign currency manipulation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and future free trade agreements. The Senators point out that currency manipulation is an illegal trade practice that has cost the U.S. millions of jobs. The Senators want U.S. officials to stand up for U.S. businesses and workers by including enforceable measures against currency manipulation in trade agreements in order to ensure a level playing field on global trade and to help create jobs here at home.

http://www.stabenow.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1171#sthash.VxDR6FZs.dpuf

[Liberalynn]

10. As I said I am not communicating well on this today.

I'm not sure this is better but here goes. Regardless of whether it is done legally or illegally according to our system, it is bad form to openly telegraph to a foreign government before negotiations have even been completed, or there is an actual product to ratify or not ratify, that you in all likelihood will not accept said product once it is brought before you. It may not be specifically spelled out that way but the implication is there. So what's the point of even attempting negotiations?

And on domestic laws, New administrations and new congresses can repeal laws legally, yes, and that's as it should be, because bad laws sometimes get passed. But is the standard now going to become well I don't like that law, not because it's not a good law, but just because it was the other side's idea and I hate them just on principle?

The point is these 47 haven't even seen an agreement yet, they don't know the President isn't going to bring them something to vote yeah or nay to, yet they are already implying they are going to reject it simply because it's his administration doing the negotiations. Again not saying they said that literally but it's what they are implying and even Iran's negotiators can see that.

Legality and Ethics are often not the same.

[jberryhill]

13. "it is bad form to openly telegraph to a foreign government before negotiations..."

I agree, but you will not get consensus on that proposition at DU if we are talking about trade treaty negotiations.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/05/1355626/-Senator-Bernie-Sanders-The-Trans-Pacific-Trade-TPP-Agreement-Must-Be-Defeated

The Trans-Pacific Trade (TPP) Agreement
Must Be Defeated

By Bernie Sanders

[Liberalynn]

15. Acknowledged.

It makes sense to see what a draft proposal would actually look like before rejecting it out of hand.

Otherwise, t would be like a teacher giving an automatic F to a paper before they even turned one in just because they didn't like the student but see that's what I feel the Republicans do to the President every day on almost every issue. I don't agree with him a 100 percent of the time either but I listen to what he says and consider whether I agree or disagree based on the issue itself.

I listen to what the Republicans say but to be honest I don't hear them offering many proposals beyond that we need more tax cuts for the wealthy with which I disagree with because I believe we've already been trying that with very little success! They also say people just need to work harder, which is an insult to people working 2 or 3 jobs already or people who legitimately can't work because of an illness.

Then there is their contention that companies are over regulated. Well I would point to the rise in food born illnesses because of lax enforcement and fewer inspections. We've given companies a chance to put public safety over profit, and pretty much they usually choose profit. We can say the competition in a free market will weed out bad consumer service providers, but how can it when monopolies do all they can to stifle honest competition? There to use sports terminology has to be a referee, in these cases the government, to at least make sure there is some semblance of fair play.
It's not radical it's common sense.

If they put out new ideas I will try to base agreement on the merit of the proposed not the author.

The only thing I dismiss the Republicans out of hand on is their racism, sexism, bigotry, poor bashing etc. That's just irrational and pointless and doesn't contribute anything of worth to the discussion of our county's future.

[maxrandb]

6. Only the laws and aggreements passed

while a black man is president.

If you think I'm joking, you haven't been paying attention...and yet, we continuously reward this type of behavior by electing these asshats to power all over this country.

That's why it is WAY PAST TIME to "effing" buckledown and VOTE "D" STRAIGHT DOWN THE FUCKING LINE in every election from County Dog-catcher to President.

We can worry about fixing some of the minor problems in the Democratic Party later, but it has to be a laser-focused goal to MAKE MITCH MCCONNEL A ONE-TERM MAJORITY LEADER...AND SEND JOHN BOEHNER TO A QUICK RETIREMENT!

The very survival of our country and way of life are at stake! And that's not hyperbole

[Liberalynn]

9. I do vote D all the way

Last edited Tue Mar 10, 2015, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

The problem is that too many other people in my district and other parts of the country are voting R, and not enough Ds who register are actually going to the polls I've volunteered, I've preached, I don't know what else I can do.

And yes I also agree they are doing this because President Obama is black, but I also think they wouldn't be any different to a woman, a Hispanic, or anyone who doesn't have pearly white skin and a penis.

[Savannahmann]

8. It depends.

Agreements submitted to Congress are treaties once they pass. A two thirds majority in the Senate, or a simple majority in both houses of congress are not treaties, but are agreements. Those continue through all administrations until they expire, or are abrogated. Remember, George W. withdrew us from the ABM treaty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty#US_withdrawal through the argument that the Soviet Union did not exist any longer. This cessation of the treaty was not submitted to Congress, but was legal if stupid.

Other treaties have an expiration date, like the Washington Treaty that prohibited naval build up that Japan pulled out of at the expiration date prior to World War II.

The truth is that any President can undo what a previous President has done. Walk away from treaties, ignore agreements, break the word of the President before. Anyone who has read any history knows this. The United States is hardly the first country to do it by the way. In fact, the United States walked away from our first Treaty while Washington was President. Seriously.

France helped the United States win the war of Independence. French support included weapons, training, and support from French Naval units. Shortly after we became a Constitutional Nation, France was thrown into a war of Independence. We had a treaty of alliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-American_alliance Thomas Jefferson argued that this treaty required the United States to fight in favor of King Louis XVIII of France. The treaty of 1778 was utterly ignored by 1792 by the Americans, before the French Revolution I might add.

So America has a long tradition of demanding that treaties be upheld when it suits us, and ignoring them when it doesn't. An executive agreement has even less force of law, and is far more easily abrogated. The executive agreement is nothing more than a word of honor. It might survive until the President leaves office, it might not. Very few have survived through the next several presidents. One that has is the agreement that Kennedy made to refrain from invading Cuba if the Missiles were removed. No treaty was signed, but that word of honor has continued since 1962.

But don't think that abrogating treaties is something that hasn't happened much. It has. The end of the Vietnam war was by treaty. In the treaty, the United States stated that they would return to combat operations if the North invaded the South. We did not return to the fighting despite the south being overrun. Was that the right choice? Yes, and no. Yes, more senseless combat would have done nothing but delay the populist supported North from unifying the nation. No, because we said we would do something, and we didn't do it.

Taiwan wonders every time there is an election if the next President will decide that Taiwan is too much trouble to defend. One day, we may well be given the choice to fight for Taiwan's independence, or allow them to be overrun by the Chinese. I honestly have no idea what we will decide to do. Agreements that we would defend Taiwan not withstanding, it will be the decision of the President in office at that time what we do. I wouldn't be the one to place bets on either side of that one.

[Liberalynn]

11. You make some great points.

Look at our treaties with the Native Americans. We have been breaking them through out our history.

And other countries break theirs too.

I guess life, circumstances, and human nature make everything a gamble any way.

[Savannahmann]

16. I did not want to even begin to broach the subject of the Indian treaties.

That subject is one that can only be viewed with shame. But you are absolutely correct, we broke every single one of them as I recall. I would not be so arrogant as to believe I could do it justice in a post online. Perhaps we should make a thread. Find a treaty the American Government made with the Native Americans that was upheld and honored.

Treaties and agreements that are proclaimed to be solemn and honorable and timeless last until it is profitable or convenient to violate. It has not been something that was broken only by Americans however. Germany in 1914 invaded the nations that were neutral by treaty which Germany had signed. The German words have lived through the ages as Britain declared war on Germany for violating the neutrality of Belgium. Germany raged that Britain would go to war over a word neutrality, over a scrap of paper, the treaty.

Yet, twenty years later, Britain would consider violations of the treaty of Versailles to be minor inconveniences not worth going to war over, to the horror of history. Hitler could have been stopped early if Britain and France had stood up and said no. Instead, they abrogated their responsibilities under the treaty, and some sixty to eighty million died as a result.

[gratuitous]

12. In essence, the Gang of 47 is saying, "Don't trust us to keep our word"

This is the same political party, remember, that launched two elective invasions of other countries while cutting tax revenues substantially. When the bills started coming due for those wars and money got tight, the Republicans claimed they didn't have to pay for the expenses they incurred, and it was all the Democrats' fault for wanting to honor our debts.

The Gang of 47 statement is of a piece with that.

[Liberalynn]

14. That's an excellent reminder

they don't even want us to honor debt we have already incurred. If you bring up the cost of the wars to a Republican, the answer you will often get is "why are you bringing up past history, Bush isn't even President anymore." They don't seem to get that the debt he committed us to carry didn't magically disappear into the ether once he left office. I wish all the consequences of his mistakes would have vanished once he was out, but that's not the way reality works.

Hell I wish all the consequences of all the mistakes humanity has made collectively including my own would just vanish but sadly they linger sometimes even after we are but a distant memory.