General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums'Embarrassing’: GOP senators get the Constitution wrong while lecturing Iran about US law
An open letter signed by 47 Republicans senators warning Iranian leaders about a nuclear deal with the United States contains an embarrassing and unbecoming error.
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system, the letter began.
But Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith, writing at the Lawfare blog, said it appears that the senators are the ones who do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.
The letter warned that President Barack Obama had no right to negotiate international treaties without congressional approval.
In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote
Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement, the letter claimed.
However, Goldsmith noted that the Senates own website makes clear that the Senate does not ratify treaties. The president is the one who ratifies the treaty if the Senate consents.
Full article:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/embarrassing-gop-senators-get-the-constitution-wrong-while-lecturing-iran-about-us-law/
sinkingfeeling
(51,470 posts)a total of 2 years in any national government office. He didn't know that food stamp allocations have been a part of the Farm bill for decades when he 'served' in the House for a single term.
Oneironaut
(5,522 posts)I don't think this mistake was caused by ignorance. They just don't care.
procon
(15,805 posts)Someone encouraged this freshman senator. Who wrote the Farsi translation that accompanied his letter? Its someone who has confused the international non-binding (non-treaty) agreement that Obama and the other 5 nations are working on, with a treaty.
All the 47 Republicans mistakenly think this is a treaty, a "binding international agreement", and they self righteously warn that "anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Zarif emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/10/a-coda-to-the-cotton-letter/
Cotton and his 47 have made clear that their goal isn't to reach any deal with Iran, rather they intend to prevent any deal at all. So who benefits and who stands to gain if this international agreement fails?