Iran Responds To GOP Letter: They Don’t Even Understand Their Own Constitution

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: kevinp2300

You do understand that foreign minister is harping about "international law" which actually is not going to be binding Congress if they decide to upset Obama's apple cart in this game. And you can't claim he would be ignorant of such tactics given what Iran has done along several lines of actions over the years contrary to "international law." So his words are mere propaganda also. And why not? They all are politicians with their own purposes.

You're right international law won't be binding to congress in this but there is an American law called the Logan act that will. Hopefully the White House will pay attention to the petition that people have signed and charge those 47 traitors accordingly.

Well what is our president doing negotiating something with international ramifications that would yet put any response from congress under the Logan Act? There is really no constitutional provision for any US president negotiating as a representative of other nations in effect. Besides that there is really no attempt to enter negotiations here simply reminding Iran that the congress has final authority here anyway.

a reply to: AinElohim

I don't think they're sitting on much oil... and never really considered them sitting on NG.

well actually ....

Iran holds the world's fourth-largest proved crude oil reserves and the world's second-largest natural gas reserves.

check

a reply to: xuenchen

humm! 3rd largest in the world...

150 Billion barrels, yeah that's no little tootsie roll, it's one of those giant round lolli pops.

Still at their present rate of consumption and if no new oil was found, or technologies developed, it would last them approx 98yrs.

USA is sitting on about 450yrs in reserve at present rate of consumption.

There is no precent for what the republicans have done according to Senate historians.

The U.S. Senate Historian’s Office has so far been unable to find another example in the chamber’s history where one political party openly tried to deal with a foreign power against a presidential policy, as Republicans have attempted in their open letter to Iran this week

Read more here: www.mcclatchydc.com...=cpy

“We haven’t found a precedent,” said Senate Historian Donald Ritchie. “That doesn’t mean there isn’t a precedent. After 200 years. It’s hard to find anything that unprecedented.”

In the past, Ritchie said, “what usually happened is a senator would sign a ‘round robin’ letter or a sense of the Senate resolution, or write a letter to the president or secretary of State voicing objections to some particular policy.


Read more here: www.mcclatchydc.com...=cpy

This alledged letter by Democrats to Noriega (I've yet to find a solid source) was not a threat to a standing government nor was it sent during active negoiations between the countries involved. So no, it is not comparable.

originally posted by: MrAverage
The Logan Act only forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S.. Members of Congress would not be considered as "unauthorized citizens".

At this stage of the process, they are 'unaruthorized'.

www.law.asu.edu...

Treaties are initiated at the executive level of government usually by the President or the Secretary of State. A representative for the United States is sent to negotiate the terms of the treaty with the representatives of other countries. When the parties agree on the terms, the representative submits the terms to the Secretary of State for approval. If the terms are accepted by the Secretary of State, then the representative will sign the treaty. The Secretary of State submits the treaty to the President for transmittal to the Senate.

Once the President receives the treaty, it is submitted to the Senate for approval. In the Senate, it is referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for consideration. The committee considers the terms of the treaty and, upon approval, submits the treaty to the entire Senate for consideration. The Senate must approve the treaty with a 2/3 majority vote. The President ratifies the treaty and proclaims its entry into force.

Only once the initial treaty has been signed does the Senate come into play to approve it.

As usual the Republicans are creating useless and unproductive drama. Seems to be the only tactic in their quiver - noise and non-sense.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Ok. They sent a letter but remember the definition of negotiating correct? Now according to that meaning did they give or take anythiing? All they did was state what THEY will do AFTER the negotiations with Obama. It isnt affecting the current negotiations. Its up to the president to change their minds and convince them to ratify it.

a reply to: yuppa
a reply to: FyreByrd

I feel like a broken record...it's not a treaty!

The talks with Iran are regarding an international agreement between the UN Security Council and Iran. That's part of what makes this letter so stupid, the author doesn't even know what he's talking about. There's very, very little the senate can do with the agreement. There's no ratification necessary.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: yuppa
a reply to: FyreByrd

I feel like a broken record...it's not a treaty!

The talks with Iran are regarding an international agreement between the UN Security Council and Iran. That's part of what makes this letter so stupid, the author doesn't even know what he's talking about. There's very, very little the senate can do with the agreement. There's no ratification necessary.

Actually.....According to our constitution the UN can pass all it wants but UNLESS its ratified by the US we do NOT have to respect it at all. All prefectly legal and constituitional. All foreign agreements have to pass through the senate. No if ands or butts to be legallly binding.

The Letter is correct. No matter what agreement is made it must be certified by congress under the Constitution, otherwise it has no meaning and will be reversed by the next president.

a reply to: amfirst1

No, it doesn't need to be certified by congress. It can't and won't be reversed by the next president because that would violate our treaty with the UN which would be unconstitutional.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: yuppa
a reply to: FyreByrd

I feel like a broken record...it's not a treaty!

The talks with Iran are regarding an international agreement between the UN Security Council and Iran. That's part of what makes this letter so stupid, the author doesn't even know what he's talking about. There's very, very little the senate can do with the agreement. There's no ratification necessary.

Here is the LEGAL definition of treaty for your education:

A compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public Welfare.

A treaty is an agreement in written form between nation-states (or international agencies, such as the United Nations, that have been given treaty-making capacity by the states that created them) that is intended to establish a relationship governed by International Law. It may be contained in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments such as an exchange of diplomatic notes. Various terms have been used for such an agreement, including treaty, convention, protocol, declaration, charter, Covenant, pact, act, statute, exchange of notes, agreement, modus vivendi ("manner of living" or practical compromise), and understanding. The particular designation does not affect the agreement's legal character.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

originally posted by: amfirst1
The Letter is correct. No matter what agreement is made it must be certified by congress under the Constitution, otherwise it has no meaning and will be reversed by the next president.

I think the word you are looking for is ratified not certified. You could have looked up how our country handles these issues and seen for yourself how out of line this letter was. But that would take up your valuable time.

originally posted by: amfirst1
The Letter is correct. No matter what agreement is made it must be certified by congress under the Constitution, otherwise it has no meaning and will be reversed by the next president.

Not an executive agreement, apparently they don't require congress. wiki

They have been in use for some time and the next president apparently does not automatically cancel them.



Apparently it's something that's been going on for a while.

Looks like Reagan and Clinton really like them too!

a reply to: Elton

The Supreme Court said in its 2008 Medellin decision. The justices held that the president cannot usurp the constitutional authority of other government components under the guise of his power to conduct foreign affairs. Moreover, even a properly ratified treaty can be converted into domestic law only by congressional lawmaking, not by unilateral presidential action.

Also the senate specifically is granted opinion and recommendation to enact a treaty. If they agree then it goes to pres for ratification, They have said they will not so its DOA. Just liek harry reid did with alot of stuff.

Also IF its NOT a treaty we dont have to honor it really. If not ratifies,passed or agreed on according to the supreme court it falls as a foreighn law not applicable to the US,I think the senate and congress needs to withdraw funding of the UN and refuse to fund them ever again. also pull out of NATO and let them cover the bills.