Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Is Not A Treaty

(with thanks to Infidel Bloggers Alliance for the information in this blog post)

Basically, according to John Kerry, "We're saying the Iran Treaty isn't a treaty because it's impossible to pass a treaty anymore."  

Watch the short video below the fold.


Also see this:
Amir Taheri @AmirTaheri4

Deputy Foreign Min. Araqchi: In nuke talks Kerry was often on our side, trying to find formula to meet our demands. (Briefing for govt, TV).
6:34 AM - 3 Aug 2015
[the above at Twitter]

46 comments:

  1. Was somebody trying to pass the agreement off as a treaty? I was always understanding the Iran deal to fall under the far more vague definition of an 'agreement'.

    CI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      Was somebody trying to pass the agreement off as a treaty?

      I don't know. Does Congress have to approve a mere agreement? I'm unclear on that matter.

      I think that an agreement doesn't have the same binding powers as a treaty.

      John Kerry seems to be stating an end run around the Constitution -- as in "This would be a treaty if Congress would go along with us." He seems to believe that Congress should automatically rubber stamp whatever the Obama administration wants. Otherwise, Congress is guilty of obstruction. But isn't it Congress's job to make sure that the Chief Executive doesn't overstep?

      Delete
    2. As I understand the deal [and don't take my layman's word for it], the Iran deal does not meet the parameters to be considered a treaty...which requires a 2/3rd's approval vote by Congress. Rather, due to rules passed in the 1960's [to finally stymie a measure introduced by FDR], this is termed an 'Executive Action', allowing Congress to approve or oppose a deal by resolution.

      Though apparently, a deal between the Executive and Legislative branches prior to the Iran agreement, Congress can block this deal.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/the-role-of-congress-or-lack-thereof-in-the-iran-deal-explained/

      Delete
    3. CI,
      Informative link!

      A few excerpts:

      "When is a treaty not a treaty?" Stevenson said. "When it's not called a treaty." Otherwise: "There's no other difference."

      Not comforting!

      So Congress reached an agreement with Obama under which it can vote to void any deal that is reached with Iran. With the deal now wrapped up, Congress could vote very soon. Obama's pretty safe, though, because as was clear even when he agreed to allow Congress to vote, he can veto any "no" vote if it passes both chambers in the Republican-controlled Congress. At that point, Republicans would need to get many Democrats to join them to overturn the veto.

      and

      The basic thing we want you to take away from this is the difference between a treaty (which has to be approved by the Senate) and an executive agreement (a treaty-except-not-officially-called-that which doesn't have to be approved by the Senate but that sometimes Congress gets to vote on.)

      In other words, any of the braying and boasting about stopping the Iran deal in the upcoming GOP debate will mean nothing UNLESS the next POTUS can cancel the executive agreement. Does Iran know about that possible loophole?

      Delete
    4. "A rose by any other name..."

      I would argue that Congress has no more authority to unilaterally abrogate the Constitution than does the President.

      The opinion of the Washington Post and it's tame 'expert' notwithstanding, an agreement with a foreign power is a 'treaty' both de facto and de jure.

      Article II section 2 is quite specific; " 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; "

      When did he solicit their advice? When did he receive their consent?

      May Congress alter those parameters on it's own? Or would/should that require amending the Constitution?

      One of the interesting aspects of this issue is that while an Executive Agreement may be binding on the Federal government, it is not enforceable on the individual states. If one or several states refuses to release funds held, or remove sanctions against doing business with Iranian companies, there exists no means to compel them to do so.

      Treaty's have force as law, and apply to all, which is why they require that "advice and consent".

      Delete
    5. Viburnum,
      Thank you for that excellent and reasoned comment.

      I am going to copy and paste your comment at the bottom of this comments thread -- and hope for some reasoned discussion thereof.

      Delete
  2. How stupid do the Politicians of this country think that we are to seriously risk handing over the Highest Office in the land to Hillary Rodham Clinton after Obama's disastrous two terms

    ReplyDelete
  3. For the sake of AmericaAugust 4, 2015 at 7:24:00 AM EDT

    It Should be a hot topic Thursday at the clown car gathering.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Kerry is a favorite punching bag for righties, but his explanation is based on the constitution, so I don't see what your beef is.

    Obama ain't doing this on his own. Congress will have to vote it up or down. That's democracy, my friends. Ya don't like it, lump it, take it down the road and dump it. I can imagine the screams from your side when Hillary is president. More fun times.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. This thread is about the Iran agreement.

      Please restrict comments to that topic.

      Thank you.

      Delete
  6. And what really gets me is that these leftwing nutcakes like Chuckie Schumer STILL can't make up his freaken mind if this deal is "Good" or not!
    Only a moron would think it's a Good Deal.

    Well Duh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Schumer's no better or worse than the others. Unfortunately, my friend, Washington DC is all about the quid pro quo.

      Delete
    2. Well being Jewish, and keeping in mind Iran's constant threats to Israel, maybe he should!

      Delete
  7. Doesn't really matter what we do. Israel will go nuclear against Iran if threatened.

    I sleep better at night, knowing Israel has a stake in the game.

    The Last English Prince

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So do I , more so than thinking about this jackass we have in the Zovsl office, or the possibility of a Pres Hillary!

      Delete
    2. Zovsl Office? What is that? Some kind of neo-con Zionist code speak for the Oval Office that is owned by Israel?

      Delete
    3. Yeah that's what it is....... By the way I don't argue with Liberals or any other Idiots.
      I just ignore them

      Delete
    4. Well, thank you sir, for not ignoring me! Allah's blessings be upon you!

      Delete
    5. You'd sleep even better if you had the sense to be wary of Iran going nuclear against Israel when it feels threatened.

      Delete
    6. Ducky, .so it's ISRAEL that IRAN needs to fear now? Where do you get this stuff?
      Shall we compare rhetoric from Iran against Israel and the other way around?
      http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/iran-publishes-book-on-how-to-outwit-us-and-destroy-israel/

      Delete
    7. Israel may
      Be as great as they say

      But she wouldn't be missed
      If she didn't exist.

      E.A. Poetaster

      Delete
    8. Hey A-hole, wake up to the fact that Iran is our Enemy Israel is not.

      Delete
    9. "Iran is our enemy Israel is not."

      Neither one is our friend. It's stupid and naive not to see that.

      Belinda Holmes-Butterworth

      Delete
    10. In my view, Israel is much more our friend than Iran. For one thing, I don't see Israel taking any of our people hostage -- as the Iranians have done time and time again. Furthermore, most of Israel's interests are not a threat to America's own interests.

      Israel is a little piece of civilization stranded amongst a lot of barbarians.

      BTW, I am not supporting Israel because of theological reasons (God's chosen people). I support Israel because it is a stable and viable nation state -- and has been such since the founding of modern Israel.

      Was it wise to place a nation state for Jews in that location? Probably not. But it's been there now for some 70 years.

      Delete
  8. Is there any other way to achieve this goal?

    The congress has become a dysfunctional aberration that allows a minority to routinely throw sand in the gears.
    Remember Jim DeMint who had a standing filibuster of every piece of legislation that came for a vote?

    It became dysfunctional and it has become necessary to find ways to make the system function. The Iran "agreement" is an example.

    What do you expect in a system of government where compromise is virtually impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What goals would that be?

    Allowing Iran to keep its "for peaceful academic purposes only" centrifuges?
    Handing Iran hundreds of billions?
    Saving a regime that kills dissidents and funds terrorists?
    Protecting Iran from Israel?
    Allowing Iran to openly proceed with their program once with "agreement" expires?

    Obama has put America and the free work in mortal peril.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe it's only a TREATY when both sides benefit?
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, well your not the President!
      Thank God.

      Delete
  11. Ducky,

    You are quite a wit. That being said, I wonder which straits the Israeli Dolphin class submarines are passing through on any given day?

    Choke point theory! Classic Navy doctrine!

    The Last English Prince

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you're a Navy guy?

      I was in the Army way back when. Wanted to go Coast Guard but I got drafted.

      Delete
  12. Iranians do not worship the American flag and barbecue pork steaks on Fridays, so it hardly seems rational to believe they would be reasonable at the negotiating table. It should be a non-starter to discussions that Iran will not compensate America for all the oxygen our trees provide them. It insults me deeply that Iranians do not thank us every day for not nuking them off the face of the Earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beamish,
      All good Beamishisms! Do those points have Beamishisms numbers? ;^)

      Delete
    2. No, just a random rant. Here's a new, related Beamishism: The best way to not have enemies is to kill them all. (#34,762)

      Delete
    3. I'm not usually driven to hate an entire nation / ethnicity, but if I had to chose one for rapid extermination, Iranians probably make the short list. We have owed them an asswhoopin since 1979, and shouldn't even be talking to them until they are willing to allow us to test and study the effects of thermobaric bombs on cities named Qom. Do they burn hotter in Tehran? Only science can tell.

      Delete
    4. Beamish,
      The best way to not have enemies is to kill them all.

      The opposite philosophy of Marie Harf, who actually stated that one cannot defeat the enemy by killing the enemy.

      Delete
  13. Duck said:

    The congress has become a dysfunctional aberration that allows a minority to routinely throw sand in the gears.

    I say: So what? Were the situation reversed and a Democratic Party were obstructing a GOP President, the Left would be standing up and cheering.

    Our Founders wanted the process of governance to be deliberate, slow, and, yes, obstructionist. And the POTUS can also slow down the process by using the veto. Such a measured process was designed to rein in tyranny.

    The Age of Instant Gratification has wrought havoc in so many ways -- not only political.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Higher up in this thread, Virbunum made the following excellent comment, which merits discussion if commenters here are inclined to do so:

    "A rose by any other name..."

    I would argue that Congress has no more authority to unilaterally abrogate the Constitution than does the President.

    The opinion of the Washington Post and it's tame 'expert' notwithstanding, an agreement with a foreign power is a 'treaty' both de facto and de jure.

    Article II section 2 is quite specific; " 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; "

    When did he solicit their advice? When did he receive their consent?

    May Congress alter those parameters on it's own? Or would/should that require amending the Constitution?

    One of the interesting aspects of this issue is that while an Executive Agreement may be binding on the Federal government, it is not enforceable on the individual states. If one or several states refuses to release funds held, or remove sanctions against doing business with Iranian companies, there exists no means to compel them to do so.

    Treaty's have force as law, and apply to all, which is why they require that "advice and consent".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crickets. Perhaps I have to stop posing such difficult questions. ;-) America has been graded on the curve for far too long.

      Delete
    2. Viburnum,
      It's summer. Sometimes discussions are intermittent. Oh, well. Such is the cycle of blogging.

      Delete
  15. I for one support Israel, and know this agreement with Iran is a bad idea. We do not trust Iran in the least. What mystifies me is why is President Obama and Secretary Of State Kerry seeking out such an agreement This is why Obama didn’t want Netanyahu to speak to Congress. And we all know that Obama doesn't give a flying fig about Congress.. A “Treaty” is not a “Treaty” or a deal unless Congress approves it.
    A deal requires give & take on both sides. Iran took & we gave. Nothing else of consequence took place . With one swipe of that executive pen & phone that Obama screwed us all and screwed Israel at the same time.
    There are many in the US who are looking forward to hearing PM Netanyahu speak to Congress. Our Congress represents the American people, not this President or their political parties. We wanted to know what Bibi Netanyahu had to say, not kept in the dark like our President sometimes does. We remember what Iran has called the United States and Israel, even if our President seems to have forgotten. We are friends with Israel, and welcome PM Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to the peoples house

    ReplyDelete
  16. Donald a Trump 2016
    Stop Hillary Now

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective