You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Obama: 'Once I sign the agreement, you can read the agreement'
2015-03-10
[Israel Matzav] On Monday, nearly 50 Republican Senators sent a letter to Iran, informing that country's regime that once President Obama leaves office in January 2017, no President who succeeds him will continue to abide by any agreement that he enters into with Iran, unless that agreement first passes the Congress (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

"It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system ... Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement," the senators wrote. "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."

Many inside the Republican caucus, however, hope that by pointing out the long-term fragility of a deal with no congressional approval -- something Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also noted -- the Iranian regime might be convinced to think twice. "Iran's ayatollahs need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that ... any unilateral executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril," Cotton told me.

The new letter is the latest piece of an effort by Senators in both parties to ensure that Congress will have some say if and when a deal is signed. Senators Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Tim Kaine and the embattled Bob Menendez have a bill pending that would mandate a Congressional review of the Iran deal, but Republicans and Democrats have been bickering over how to proceed in the face of a threatened presidential veto.

The White House reacted furiously, arguing that the bill 'undermines' the President's ability 'to conduct foreign policy.' No kidding. Wasn't that the whole point of the letter (Hat Tip: Memeorandum)?

White House press secretary Josh Earnest was unusually blunt in ripping the Senate GOP, saying "it's surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community."

Earnest said Republicans have a "long and rather sordid history" of putting military options ahead of diplomatic ones, and called the letter, signed by 47 GOP lawmakers, "the continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president's authority."
Posted by: Hupineger Glomomp52169

#14  It's another type of conlaw. Like the one OGs in prison know.
Posted by: chris   2015-03-10 21:54  

#13  Yeah, cuz its a real take me word for it atmosphere going on right now.

I think he studied ConLaw much like a torturer studies anatomy.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2015-03-10 18:23  

#12  Not sure what bothers me more - this statement from a sitting President, or from a former Con Law prof.
Posted by: Iblis   2015-03-10 17:58  

#11  To paraphrase Forrest Gump: Dictatorial is as Dictatorial does.
Posted by: OldSpook   2015-03-10 15:58  

#10  It would seem to me that an agreement with a foreign government is, in fact (if not in law) a treaty, and would not be binding without ratification by the Senate. And that treaties are intended to be gnereated with the advice as well as consent of the Senate - and the President is explicitly refusing to incorporate any advice.
Posted by: Glenmore   2015-03-10 15:39  

#9  Obama: 'Once I sign the agreement, you can read the agreement' The last time the Congress bought a "pig in the poke," it got us in a lot of trouble which is still on-going (ahem, cough, Obamacare).
Posted by: JohnQC   2015-03-10 15:09  

#8  It's dead the day another executive takes office.

Thank Obama for drawing the stark line for any intelligent Trunk (yeah, sort of an oxymoron there) candidate to split the Jewish (and funding) base between the world socialists first and all the rest.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-03-10 14:13  

#7  Sounds like all the Republicans did was to state the obvious which is that no way in hell can the Champ get them to ratify his little agreement as a binding and long lasting treaty so, once again, he is attempting to make an end run around them.

To be more accurate, it's "no way in hell can you call it a treaty, and thus call it 'enforceable', if Congress doesn't sign off on it. And we aren't going to sign off on it unless we know what's in it beforehand - not when it shows up on our desks."
Posted by: Pappy   2015-03-10 13:53  

#6  Yeah well... you don't like it you can go fuck yourself.
Posted by: DarthVader   2015-03-10 13:35  

#5  Sounds like all the Republicans did was to state the obvious which is that no way in hell can the Champ get them to ratify his little agreement as a binding and long lasting treaty so, once again, he is attempting to make an end run around them. But it's no surprise that liars like him are uncomfortable with the truth. The only surprise is that these nearly but not quite 50 senators had the guts to tell it like it is.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2015-03-10 13:23  

#4  "the continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president's authority."

What authority does El Presidente have to make a binding agreement with any state?
Posted by: gorb   2015-03-10 12:56  

#3  Zero is more annoying than an ingrown toe nail, and about as painful. What will the US population do when they find out that his whole life has been fabricated and influenced by foreign interests unfriendly to the USA ?
Posted by: Flirt de Medici2727   2015-03-10 12:47  

#2  I guess he doesn't know about the Democrat senators visiting Ortega when Reagan was president and has forgotten Pelosi visiting Assad after Bush asked her not to.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2015-03-10 12:35  

#1  Two names for the Dems to consider:
Ted Kennedy, Yuri Andropov.

I've got others but that should do. (I know it won't, but, what the heck)
Posted by: AlanC   2015-03-10 12:34  

00:00