posted
Republican Senators Write To Leaders Of Iran, Attempt To Sabotage Nuclear Deal
by Igor Volsky Posted on March 9, 2015 at 10:04 a
"Republican Senators Write To Leaders Of Iran, Attempt To Sabotage Nuclear Deal"
Share: facebook icon twitter icon Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
CREDIT: AP Photo/Danny Johnston
Forty-seven Republican senators are seeking to undermine the international negotiations aimed at containing Iran’s nuclear program with an open letter to the government of Iran, warning the Persian leaders that any deal they strike with the United States and its international partners will not last past the Obama administration.
Arguing that the Senate must ratify a treaty by “a two-thirds vote,” the senators argue that they “will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.” “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” they warn.
The letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), was first reported by Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin.
The administration has sought to bypass Congressional approval of the deal, noting that Republicans — and some Democrats — have attempted to scuttle an agreement even before it is reached and are not working in good faith on an issue that would be a big win for the president. If a deal is in fact reached, Obama will use executive actions and waivers to suspend some sanctions, but will ultimately need to rely on Congress for more substantial relief.
Administration officials could also argue that Congress will have a hard time derailing any agreement that is reached by the United States and its international partners — Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — particularly if the Iranians comply with nuclear inspections. Doing so could jeopardize America’s relationships with its allies and be seen as internationally provocative towards a military conflict with Iran.
The ongoing negotiations are seeking to limit Iran’s ability to enrich weapons-grade uranium, reduce its number of operating centrifuges and advanced centrifuges, and lower its low-enriched uranium stockpiles. The emerging agreement would allow Iran to retain some parts of its nuclear infrastructure but delay the “breakout” period for developing a weapon by more than a year.
Cotton, a freshman senator from Arkansas, has a long record in trying to scuttle any deal with Iran. In 2013, Cotton labeled an interim agreement that froze Iran’s nuclear program “humiliating defeat” for the U.S. and a “total victory” for Iran and pressed for additional sanctions. He pressed Congress to supply Israel with bunker buster bombs to aid Israel in a military strike against Iran and introduced legislation to punish the family members of people who violate Iran sanctions, a measure that he later withdrew after legal experts called it unconstitutional.
Iran and its negotiating partners must agree to broad principles on limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities no later than March 24 and reach an agreement on the technical aspects of the deal by June 30.
CashCowMoo
posted
Tell me why Iran needs enrichment capabilities?
raybond
posted
how would you know what is going on they are still negotiating that is why the letter damaged our position.
raybond
posted
letter to the editor of the new York times
This story is included with an NYT Opinion subscription.
Learn more »
To the Editor:
Re “G.O.P. Senators Write to Tehran on Nuclear Pact” (front page, March 10): The letter this week by 47 Republican senators to Iranian leaders informing them that any agreement on nuclear activities signed by President Obama could be reversed “with the stroke of a pen” by a future president shows a glaring disregard for American and international law.
Starting with George Washington, presidents have signed thousands of executive agreements with other nations that have the force of law under the United States Constitution and international law.
The Constitution has been construed by the Supreme Court as allowing the president to enter into such binding agreements as part of his executive powers. While such agreements in theory could be abrogated by an American president or a subsequent law, under international law such agreements would continue to be binding on the United States. The attempted breach would give rise to a charge that the United States was violating international law.
Senators, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, should be more careful in making irresponsible statements about the United States’ international obligations.
ANDREW VORKINK
North Hampton, N.H.
The writer teaches international law at the University of New Hampshire School
CashCowMoo
posted
Well Obama wrote secret letters to Iran nobody knew of so what about that? The left is really making a huge issue out of this to try to keep the light off hillarys latest scandal.
glassman
posted
um Raybond, i have to respond to that crap.
fork internatioanl law.
Obama does not have to the right under the American Constitution to enter into his own agreement.
under such a scenario, the president could do anything like ban abortions or make guns illegal...
the Constitution provides for 2/3's from the Senate to ratify Treaties which then become law of the land. and if internatioanl law doesn't like it? they can go fork themsleves. all of them
raybond
posted
are you talking about domestic policy such as abortion and gun control in other words law of the land , or are you talking about international agreement and binding policy with other nations. by the way nice to hear from you again.
raybond
posted
No matter what you say glass until international treaties are worked out and then brought before congress and senate to be ratified by your 2/3 vote the idea of trying to damage your countries position during the process is very bad form. There is nothing that can be done about the letter because we are not at war which is what it would take to make it a crime.
Looks like your republican toadies listened to there wealthy masters this time.
raybond
posted
What the Logan Act of 1799 Says"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
In 2004, the Act was further amended, as follows:
"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
Meaning: No citizen of the United States can legally carry out any communication with a foreign government to influence foreign policies without the official approval of the president. Any person violating this law can be accused of treason, and be fined and/or jailed for up to three years. The Supreme Court ruled that only the president or someone he has authorized has the power to represent the nation internationally. Although he must seek the advice of the Senate, he alone will make all the negotiations. Congress and the Senate cannot intrude in these negotiations.
However, this Act does not infringe on the rights of a citizen to apply itself to the foreign government or its officials to settle any personal disputes with the foreign nation or any citizen from that country.
Recent Violations of the ActIt was alleged that Barack Obama had violated the Logan Act while visiting Iraq, as he attempted to negotiate the delay of troop withdrawal from that region, while George Bush was still president. While these charges had been investigated, nothing came out of it, and the allegations remain unsubstantiated.
Early in 2015, House GOP leader John Boehner was accused of trying to influence the country towards the situation in Israel, by asking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress just before the Israeli elections. The legality of the law is still under scrutiny due to this incident.
The Logan Act can be used to discipline those who seek to overstep their authority, and can be important in preventing any potentially destructive misunderstandings between the United States of America and the other nations of the world Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-the-logan-act-of1799.html
raybond
posted
In a nut shell this what the logan act of 1799 means.
Under the Logan Act, any American who attempts to negotiate or influence foreign policy without being authorized by the executive branch of the US government is committing a felony. This law was first passed in 1799, after Pennsylvania legislator George Logan influenced the relations of the United States with France without any authority to do so. The law was passed to establish a clear hierarchy of communication, and to prevent people without authority from interfering in disputes between the US and other nations during stressful times. It is widely accepted that only the president or someone authorized by the president can speak for and represent the United States of America. Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-the-logan-act-of1799.html
This has nothing to do with domestic law.
PS go stick a fork in yourself I understand if you don't like the law but TS
raybond
posted
In 2004, the Act was further amended, as follows:
"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
Meaning: No citizen of the United States can legally carry out any communication with a foreign government to influence foreign policies without the official approval of the president. Any person violating this law can be accused of treason, and be fined and/or jailed for up to three years. The Supreme Court ruled that only the president or someone he has authorized has the power to represent the nation internationally. Although he must seek the advice of the Senate, he alone will make all the negotiations." Congress and the Senate cannot intrude in these negotiations."
CashCowMoo
posted
quote:Originally posted by raybond: In 2004, the Act was further amended, as follows:
"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
Meaning: No citizen of the United States can legally carry out any communication with a foreign government to influence foreign policies without the official approval of the president. Any person violating this law can be accused of treason, and be fined and/or jailed for up to three years. The Supreme Court ruled that only the president or someone he has authorized has the power to represent the nation internationally. Although he must seek the advice of the Senate, he alone will make all the negotiations." Congress and the Senate cannot intrude in these negotiations."
So congress cant do it without approval of the president, but the president can do it without the approval of congress. Got it.
Besides the Republicans didnt do a deal. It was just a letter. Nothing was negotiated on or closed on. Keep digging your hole.
glassman
posted
quote:Originally posted by raybond: No matter what you say glass until international treaties are worked out and then brought before congress and senate to be ratified by your 2/3 vote the idea of trying to damage your countries position during the process is very bad form. There is nothing that can be done about the letter because we are not at war which is what it would take to make it a crime.
Looks like your republican toadies listened to there wealthy masters this time.
"my" republican toadies? LOL...
Article 2 US Constitution: Section 2.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
I gave up parties a decade ago and I decided i will actually learn the Constitution i swore to defend. I don't care what party you or anybody else is in. The GOP's wre obliged to inform the iranians of our Constitution too. As far as i'm concerned there isn't a single decent human being holding office in DC.
there it is in B&W "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
done.
glassman
posted
BTW? Nixon was influencing the Vietnamese peace talks while LJ was president and LBJ KNEW he did it, and didn't do anything about it ray, tell me again why you are partisan?
these shepherds laugh at their partisan flocks behind closed doors... all of them..together, dividing up the spoils
glassman
posted
in case you missed it?
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate"
glassman
posted
quote:Originally posted by raybond: No matter what you say glass until international treaties are worked out and then brought before congress and senate to be ratified by your 2/3 vote the idea of trying to damage your countries position during the process is very bad form. There is nothing that can be done about the letter because we are not at war which is what it would take to make it a crime.
Looks like your republican toadies listened to there wealthy masters this time.
one more thing about that, bad form is exaclty what our Republican Democracy has and is. Two parties are better than one (like in China and Iran) but it's much messier.. Each office holder regardless of position competes agsinst the others for power. The Founders knew this and saw how to harness that flaw and make it work for the system as whole. They set up the tricameral government under a system of checks and balances. Each office holder always tries to exceed their proper authority. always has always will...
glassman
posted
the only thing the world needs less than another nuclear power is more lawyers and politicians They are pretty much the same thing (parasites).
raybond
posted
ok so you don't agree with the law I understand that so what is your gripe with me? you don't like the law since 1799 do something to change it.
Belly aching and whining like a little girl is not going to change anything. There are lots of laws that I don't agree with I try to do something about them.
raybond
posted
posted by glassman
Icon 1 posted 13-03-2015 09:01 Profile for glassman Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote in case you missed it?
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate"
-----------------------------------------------
Of course I did not miss it I posted it. In case you missed it I plainly stated that the president still has to have the treaty ratified.
raybond
posted
Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith points to a glaring technical error in the senators’ letter:
The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”
glassman
posted
"if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent."
i beleive their letter falls under the category of advice and consent... i bet that the courts won;t even take up the issue because it's so obvious...
i have lost all partisan attitudes. that's my only problem with you. i'm pretty sure if this was Bush and a Dem. Senate you'd be on the opposite side o'the argument...
glassman
posted
BTW? i metnioned Nixon did it and LBJ didn;t press th eissue and Nixon wasn't even a Senator? I think Reagan prolly did it with the Iran hostage crisis under Carter and got away with it too since he wasn;t a Senaor either.
Senators and ONLY Senators have this responsibility.. no-one else...
raybond
posted
Recent Violations of the ActIt was alleged that Barack Obama had violated the Logan Act while visiting Iraq, as he attempted to negotiate the delay of troop withdrawal from that region, while George Bush was still president. While these charges had been investigated, nothing came out of it, and the allegations remain unsubstantiated.
Early in 2015, House GOP leader John Boehner was accused of trying to influence the country towards the situation in Israel, by asking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress just before the Israeli elections. The legality of the law is still under scrutiny due to this incident.
The Logan Act can be used to discipline those who seek to overstep their authority, and can be important in preventing any potentially destructive misunderstandings between the United States of America and the other nations of the world Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-the-logan-act-of1799.html
glassman
posted
no it can't be used to discipline the Senators. Possibly Boehner could have been disciplined cuz he's not a Senator
ray, you do not want Senators to "stay out' of the Presidents sandbox.
Forget the partisan bickering for minute. You don't want this law to be enforced evenly across the board. This is an important part of the system of checks and balances. The law can't be enforced on Senators, then it can't be enforced at all. IF they were to try to enforce the law? The SCOTUS would (assuming they aren't corrupt) have to strike it down on 1st amaemndment issues and based on Article 2 Section 2. They don't bother tryng to enforce the law because then the law would be struck down and you wouldn't have as much fun with your partisan bullcrap.
remeber the 1st ammendment? says we can talk to anybody we want...it's not just for presidents.
glassman
posted
just out of curiosity? could find out who all has been prosecuted under this law? and if any were successful what was the punishment?
glassman
posted The Logan Act has never been used for a conviction, and was used in an indictment only once in 1803, when a newspaper of Kentucky published an article supporting the formation of a separate nation in western United States, that wo Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-the-logan-act-of1799.html
see ray? i can't encourage you and ccm enough to disengage yourself form partisan bullcrap and start paying attention to what actually maters.
i've uncoverd an ungodly amount of waste fraud and abuse over the last five years that matters. the VA and their falsifying of appointments is only hte tip of th eiceberg. If you put the Federal Government on actual timecards? they's be goin' insane. The falisfying of timesheetsd in the Govt; what's really going on is epidemic and it's immoral and illegal.
glassman
posted
all these secret service forkups? that's another indicator that the culture of Govt Service is in meltdown phase. I grew up inside the beltway, the Secret Service was one of the most pristine groups in the govt as far conduct goes...now it's become a joke on late night tv.
raybond
posted
hey glass in 1799 it must have been the founding fathers that gave you logans law or some body very close to them.
glassman
posted
quote:Originally posted by raybond: hey glass in 1799 it must have been the founding fathers that gave you logans law or some body very close to them.
yep pretty close, but until someone is actually charged with the crime and then found guilty? the Constituionality of it will never be tested.
The SCOTUS won't hear a case until someone has "standing" and in order to have standing you have to have been on hte losing end of litigation, and it's never happened.
raybond
posted
you are right and I posted that as part of a post nobody has ever been convicted as of yet seems like nobody wants to get rid of the law though.
raybond
posted
see ray? i can't encourage you and ccm enough to disengage yourself form partisan bullcrap and start paying attention to what actually maters.
Glass spend your time the way you want to. I will do nothing but to encourage you to do so. The last thing I want people to say is that I ruined all your fun.
glassman
posted
quote:Originally posted by raybond: you are right and I posted that as part of a post nobody has ever been convicted as of yet seems like nobody wants to get rid of the law though.
it's the same for rational abortion laws too.... if they settled the argument once and for all they would have to find some other BS to argue about...
buckstalker
posted
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by raybond: you are right and I posted that as part of a post nobody has ever been convicted as of yet seems like nobody wants to get rid of the law though.
it's the same for rational abortion laws too.... if they settled the argument once and for all they would have to find some other BS to argue about...
You mean "pretend" to argue about...don't you Glass? Abortion, Gun Control, and all of the other bullchit issues that the parties have created are nothing more than emotional wedges that they use to divide the masses and keep them "occupied"...Rayboy and CCM are perfect examples of their success
glassman
posted
yup, and even after pointing this out to them for nearly a decade, they refuse to grasp the concept.
Relentless.
posted
It's pointless anymore to even bothering to vote other than to sway the small issues.. Peripheral bs issues. In the big elections anyways.
What changed from Bush to clinton to bush to Bammy?
Nothing.
Even the supposed saviors of the supposed right wing like Cruz and Rand are nothing more than flapping mouths which, when given the opportunity, DO nothing.
posted ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)