Trusting Iranians...

[Turtle]

Sooo, instead of responding directly to the issues put before you, your response is.... ad hominem deflection and begging the question conclusions. Awesome.

For one, dictators don't run off to the UN. Two, while our constitutional lawyer-president certainly isn't above thumbing his nose at the Constitution, entering into an Executive Agreement in accordance with the Corker Bill isn't exactly failing to follow the Constitution.

This may come as a shock to you, but, for several years now, US presidents have executive authority to make deals with foreign countries without needing to go to Congress. Since 1789 the U.S. has concluded more than 18,500 executive international agreements, with 17,300 of them occurring since WWII. From 1889 to 1939, 63.6 percent of international agreements were executive agreements, the rest were treaties. From 1939 to 1989, the percentage of executive agreements grew to 94.3 percent.

International Agreements (executive agreement/treaties)
Nixon - 1116/180
Ford - 677/97
Carter - 1169/148
Reagan - 2840/125
Bush Sr - 1350/67
Clinton - 2058/209
Bush Jr - 1876/131
Obama - 791/21

Thanks in no small part to meddling and entangling alliances, foreign policy is so much more complex today than it was ever envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. The Constitution was framed based on the "no entangling alliances” principles the framers nearly universally held. To go back in the Constitution and say everything should be done as a treaty is naive, and it's utterly retarded when that tact is selectively applied for political agenda.

 

[RLENT]

Oh ... the butt hurt is reaching truly epic proportions I see ...

Some people just happen to want a Dictator for a President, running off to the U.N. and avoiding their own government bodies.

This is rather ironic ... considering that Obama essentially submitted his executive agreement to Congress and the legislative process as defined by Corker-Cardin to have Congress weigh in on it - something that he isn't really required to do.

As to the U.N., the Executive acts at the U.N. all the time ... Congressional pre-authorization not required.

It's called C-O-N-D-U-CT ... O-F ... F-O-R-E-I-G-N ... P-O-L-I-C-Y

BTW - you are aware that the U.N. is our baby ... and that we were instrumental in setting it up in the first place, aren't you ?

It is what it is.

Yes it is ...

One could certainly say that the R's got rolled by agreeing to the process as defined by Corker-Cardin ...

Why was that ?

Well, like The Donald sez: Your leaders iz stoopid ...

For those people who do, don't ever again complain if a future President doesn't follow the constitution. Because I'll know they're a fraud.

Well I'll sure keep that in mind.

Please do cite where in the Constitution the President is required to submit to Congress every international agreement he makes in the realm of foreign policy and international relations as a treaty.

Take your time ... I know you must be very busy preparing your answers to my previous questions.

They are more of a United Nations kind of person and not about the U.S Constitution.

Well, considering you're trying to assert a non-Constitutional demand on the POTUS ... and pass it off as being Constitutionally-required ... that's a real gut-buster ...

I hope your follow-on act is just as entertaining.

 

[muttly]

Sooo, instead of responding directly to the issues put before you, your response is.... ad hominem deflection and begging the question conclusions. Awesome.

For one, dictators don't run off to the UN. Two, while our constitutionaml lawyer-president certainly isn't above thumbing his nose at the Constitution, entering into an Executive Agreement in accordance with the Corker Bill isn't exactly failing to follow the Constitution.

This may come as a shock to you, but, for several years now, US presidents have executive authority to make deals with foreign countries without needing to go to Congress. Since 1789 the U.S. has concluded more than 18,500 executive international agreements, with 17,300 of them occurring since WWII. From 1889 to 1939, 63.6 percent of international agreements were executive agreements, the rest were treaties. From 1939 to 1989, the percentage of executive agreements grew to 94.3 percent.

International Agreements (executive agreement/treaties)
Nixon - 1116/180
Ford - 677/97
Carter - 1169/148
Reagan - 2840/125
Bush Sr - 1350/67
Clinton - 2058/209
Bush Jr - 1876/131
Obama - 791/21

Thanks in no small part to meddling and entangling alliances, foreign policy is so much more complex today than it was ever envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. The Constitution was framed based on the "no entangling alliances” principles the framers nearly universally held. To go back in the Constitution and say everything should be done as a treaty is naive, and it's utterly retarded when that tact is selectively applied for political agenda.

Yeah, our Dictator tends to vacillate a bit between circumventing the Constitution and not adhering to our laws that are written.
Entering into an agreement of this magnitude requires more than just the President. The framers of the constitution emphasized Congress's affirmation of treaties for the very purpose of providing checks and balances instead of leaving it up to one person. The fact that things are more 'complicated' now lends itself to MORE input, NOT LESS. The executive agreements are for small periods of time and involve much minor matters between countries. Not for entering into a long term agreement with a terrorist state. One that is sworn enemy of the U.S. BTW, I never said a President couldn't enter into ANY Executive Agreements. ( In fact the Dershowitz article specifically mentions them and their purpose.)

Secretary of State Kerry commented (paraphrasing)previously that Congress is full of Secretary of a States so nothing can get done. Sorry,that's not a good enough reason to 'go it alone' and avoid the Treaty process. The stakes are too high for an Administration's incompetence to decide alone on these matters. Nor is it to leave out details of the deal required by the statute. The Corker bill was a way of providing oversight to the process and had language in it to provide every scintilla of information related to the deal.
But once again Obama thumbed his nose at the law and didn't provide all the information regarding to the side deals. These side deals are a major reason why Iran would agree to such a deal, yet they were initially not disclosed to Congress. And they still have not given all the information about them. Is this acceptable to you? Can you honestly say you know every detail in these side deals? It's about demanding that a President follow the law and respect the Constitution. This one has a hard time of doing either.

 

[Pilgrim]

It might help to understand exactly what Executive Agreements are as opposed to Treaties, the purpose for which they have historically been intended, and the circumstances under which they should be avoided as stated by the Founders themselves. The following quotes were written as though they and the author knew an incompetent egomaniac like Barack Hussein Obama might be elected as POTUS. (Bold emphasis mine)

Executive Agreements with foreign governments made by the President alone are, at the minimum, as limited as treaties insofar as concerns the President's power to enter into them being limited by the Constitution; that is, any such agreement must be in strict conformity to the Constitution in order to be valid...
The grave danger inherent in allowing any single official, specifically the President, to have the sole power to make international agreements was discussed by Hamilton in The Federalist number 75. He stated, with regard to the power to make treaties: ". . . it would be utterly unsafe and improper to entrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years duration."
After discussing in detail the weaknesses of human nature in government and the danger of excessive power to deal with foreign governments being given to one man occupying the Presidency, he continued:

"The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world to the sole disposal of a magistrate, created and circumstanced, as would be a president of the United States."


Hamilton further commented that, though it would be "imprudent to confide in him solely so important a trust," his being joined with the Senate in this regard provides reasonably adequate protection of the public interest. The danger involved was highlighted in a statement by Madison (in a letter to Jefferson, 1798) as follows:

"The management of foreign relations appears to be the most susceptible of abuse of all the trusts committed to a Government, because they can be concealed or disclosed, or disclosed in such parts and at such times as will best suit particular views . . . Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

This makes clear the reason why Executive Agreements, entered into with foreign governments by the President alone, are not only potentially dangerous in highest degree but undoubtedly violate the limits imposed by the Constitution upon the power of the Federal government whenever this device (an Executive Agreement) is used to bring into being any international agreement of a type which traditionally would have been considered to require a treaty to be entered into by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Under this principle, only Executive Agreements as to very minor matters would be exempted and permitted to the President alone. The danger involved in any one-man power to make agreements with foreign governments is all the more apparent in the light of this truth stated in Washington's Farewell Address (emphasis per original):

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government." (Here "Republican" means that of a Republic.)

For the President to resort to an Executive Agreement in order to evade the Constitution's limits on his power in international dealings constitutes usurpation of power and is as offensive from the standpoint of the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government as it is according to the principles of sound morality.

Limited Government in Relation to The Constitution's Treaty Clause

Assuming Obama's executive agreement with Iran does get put in place, it appears that the next POTUS will be able to rescind it since it will only be politically binding as opposed to legally binding. This will no doubt be facilitated by the infractions that the Iranians will no doubt commit as they have done with other "agreements" in the recent past. When it comes to dealing with barbarians like these, the first consideration should be our own self interest, then that of our allies. What the whole world thinks shouldn't be a factor in the process. Neither Iran, nor Russia, nor China, nor Mexico, nor North Korea, nor any other nations form their foreign policy on what the whole world's opinion is unless maybe they're looking for foreign aid. The terrorist regime of Iran should be strangled, not fed.

 

[Turtle]

Entering into an agreement of this magnitude requires more than just the President.

Maybe, maybe not. The Constitution really doesn't say much about magnitude.

The framers of the constitution emphasized Congress's affirmation of treaties for the very purpose of providing checks and balances instead of leaving it up to one person.

Not really. Half the framers wanted it to be solely the president's decision and the other half wanted it to be solely up to the Senate. What we have isis the resulting compromise.

The fact that things are more 'complicated' now lends itself to MORE input, NOT LESS.

If that were even a little bit true, then presidents since WWII, and especially since Nixon, wouldn't be avoiding Congress at every opportunity. More input from Congress has become to mean every Senator and as many Congressmen as possible putting their thumbprint on it with amendments that have nothing to do with the agreement. Every president we've ever had, including Washington, has complained about having to deal with Congress on even the simplest of international agreements.

The executive agreements are for small periods of time and involve much minor matters between countries.

Every president on the list above disagrees with you completely

Secretary of State Kerry commented (paraphrasing)previously that Congress is full of Secretary of a States so nothing can get done. Sorry,that's not a good enough reason to 'go it alone' and avoid the Treaty process.

And yet that's why every president has done it.

The Corker bill was a way of providing oversight to the process and had language in it to provide every scintilla of information related to the deal. But once again Obama thumbed his nose at the law and didn't provide all the information regarding to the side deals. These side deals are a major reason why Iran would agree to such a deal, yet they were initially not disclosed to Congress. And they still have not given all the information about them. Is this acceptable to you? Can you honestly say you know every detail in these side deals? It's about demanding that a President follow the law and respect the Constitution. This one has a hard time of doing either.

It is troublesome that Congress wasn't made aware of the side deals, even though the side deals are between the IAEA and Iran directly, and not with the US. Side deals happen with nearly every executive agreement and treaty, and usually remain secret, which is probably why it was even mentioned in the Corker bill at all. But not following everyone's interpretation of the Corker bill is still not the same as not following the Constitution, which you've mentioned again, I guess hoping that if you mention it enough it will somehow magically become true. In any even, the Corker bill provides Congress with everything they need to approve or disapprove the

It might help to understand exactly what Executive Agreements are as opposed to Treaties, the purpose for which they have historically been intended, and the circumstances under which they should be avoided as stated by the Founders themselves. The following quotes were written as though they and the author knew an incompetent egomaniac like Barack Hussein Obama might be elected as POTUS. (Bold emphasis mine)

Assuming Obama's executive agreement with Iran does get put in place, it appears that the next POTUS will be able to rescind it since it will only be politically binding as opposed to legally binding. This will no doubt be facilitated by the infractions that the Iranians will no doubt commit as they have done with other "agreements" in the recent past. When it comes to dealing with barbarians like these, the first consideration should be our own self interest, then that of our allies. What the whole world thinks shouldn't be a factor in the process. Neither Iran, nor Russia, nor China, nor Mexico, nor North Korea, nor any other nations form their foreign policy on what the whole world's opinion is unless maybe they're looking for foreign aid. The terrorist regime of Iran should be strangled, not fed.

 

[Turtle]

It might help to understand exactly what Executive Agreements are as opposed to Treaties, the purpose for which they have historically been intended, and the circumstances under which they should be avoided as stated by the Founders themselves.

It might help even more to fully understand all of the above. The article quotes Madison, then gives a "therefore" conclusion which you bolded, except Madison was one of those who felt the responsibilities of treaties should rest solely with the President.

 

[RLENT]

Yeah, our Dictator tends to vacillate a bit between circumventing the Constitution and not adhering to our laws that are written.

So ... you really got nothing in answer to my specific questions then ?

Other than POTUS ad hominem that is ...

Got it.

Entering into an agreement of this magnitude requires more than just the President.

Well, at a minimum it requires at least another party in order to have an agreement.

Beyond that ...

The framers of the constitution emphasized Congress's affirmation of treaties for the very purpose of providing checks and balances instead of leaving it up to one person. The fact that things are more 'complicated' now lends itself to MORE input, NOT LESS.

Assumes good faith efforts on the part of the political opposition to do what is in the best interests of the country ... rather than succumbing to fanatical partisan jihad ...

Unfortunately - for the Republicans (or many of them) - they were quite honest about their intentions to sabotage the POTUS and make him a failure at every opportunity even before our current President took office ... and their actions since have only served to demonstrate that they were actually being candid about their intentions.

As a consequence, they have actually reaped what they have sown.

Rather ironic don't you think ?

The executive agreements are for small periods of time and involve much minor matters between countries.

LOL ... now you're only demonstrating (further) that you really have no clue about what you're talking about ...

Again: can you cite any basis for that assertion in the Constitution or settled case law ?

Not for entering into a long term agreement with a terrorist state.

Well, we ain't exactly getting all kissy-kissy with them (no diplomatic relations) ... we're dismantling a substantial portion of their nuclear program, monitoring what is left, and hopefully preventing them from becoming a nuclear weapons state ...

BTW, with something on the order of 500,000 of their citizens dead as a consequence of our irresponsible actions, what do you think the US is, in the eyes of most Iraqis (and the world) ... the frickin' tooth fairy ?

One that is sworn enemy of the U.S.

Hey ... didja know: Executive agreements have been used to end wars ...

So much for that "minor matters" and "no long-term agreements" thingie ... lol ...

BTW, I never said a President couldn't enter into ANY Executive Agreements.

Yeah ... and you have also not cited any Constitution authority or settled case law to back up your assertion that this agreement has to be a treaty.

Nor are you probably able to cite any Constitutional authority or settled case as to what legally required to be a treaty, and what can be an executive agreement.

Wanna take a stab ?

(In fact the Dershowitz article specifically mentions them and their purpose.)

Sucker born every minute ...

Secretary of State Kerry commented (paraphrasing) previously that Congress is full of Secretary of a States so nothing can get done. Sorry,that's not a good enough reason to 'go it alone' and avoid the Treaty process.

That requirement - which is your opinion - has no Constitution basis or legitimacy so far as I know.

Moreover, Congress' historical acquiescence to executive agreements to some degree amounts to an acknowledgement of what Kerry asserted ... and it's consent to them.

The stakes are too high for an Administration's incompetence to decide alone on these matters. Nor is it to leave out details of the deal required by the statute.

You seem to think that the agreements between the IAEA and Iran are "part" of "the deal" ...

They aren't, so far as I know - they are separate arrangements between the IAEA and Iran, and at least one of them apparently relates to an unsettled matter with the IAEA dating from 2003.

Could be a matter which gets litigated to get resolved ... assuming that the R's are feeling that they have a shortage of "lose" at the moment and need some more ...

The Corker bill was a way of providing oversight to the process and had language in it to provide every scintilla of information related to the deal.

You might wish to actually read the text of the Corker-Cardin bill - it may not say exactly what you (and others) think it says.

But once again Obama thumbed his nose at the law and didn't provide all the information regarding to the side deals.

Hard to provide the docx for a confidential agreement that one is not a party to, and has no right to.

These side deals are a major reason why Iran would agree to such a deal, yet they were initially not disclosed to Congress.

And you - never having seen them, nor knowing their actual contents - know this exactly how ?

And they still have not given all the information about them.

You don't actually know that.

The Congress Critters have been briefed by someone who has seen them (Wendy Sherman) - they may very well know the entire substance.

What they have not been given is the actual docs ... to wave around and scream about, in an attempt to make political hay ...

Is this acceptable to you?

Whether it is acceptable to me is irrelevant.

In an ideal world, you'd have individuals serving in Congress who could put partisan interests aside and act in a bi-partisan manner to work together for the best interests of the country - particularly in a matter as serious as this.

Unfortunately, the Repugs, generally speaking, have ****-****** that pooch til the cows came home.

Can you honestly say you know every detail in these side deals?

Nope, sure can't.

It's about demanding that a President follow the law and respect the Constitution.

Bullshizz ...

That myth was debunked repeatedly by (many) Republicans railing against the deal before it was even concluded.

And the letter by the 47 Senators drove a stake right through the heart of the lie you attempt to parrot above.

What it's about is killing this deal - or any Iranian nuke deal brokered by Obama, or any Iranian nuke deal that falls short of complete and total capitulation on the part of Iranians.

The Repugs are sadly, for the most part, incapable of envisioning a win-win (or win-win-win) scenario.

At the point where they became utterly obsessed with STOPPING Obama - on pretty much anything and everything - they descended, as a body, into ... psychosis ...

 

[RLENT]

This should drive a stake directly through the heart of another pile GOP lies and misrepresentations:

UN inspectors said to accompany Iranians on inspections

 

[RLENT]

The Reuters article referred to in the story above:

Exclusive: Iran to take Parchin military site samples with IAEA present - diplomats

 

[RLENT]

A little bit about the "tool" - AP reporter George Jahn - that was used to seed the false and misleading info that Iran was going to be doing it's own inspections and sample collection apparently unsupervised ... something that the Republicans have been braying about like donkeys over the last week or so:

Washington Shocked! Shocked That AP’s George Jahn Is a Tool for Iran Deal Opponents

George has quite a little history of being the conduit for false and misleading info when it comes to Iran's nuclear program:

George Jahn

So who's pulling Jahn's strings ?

Ask yourself who is against the deal ... besides the GOP that is ...

 

[muttly]

Maybe, maybe not. The Constitution really doesn't say much about magnitude.

Not really. Half the framers wanted it to be solely the president's decision and the other half wanted it to be solely up to the Senate. What we have isis the resulting compromise.

If that were even a little bit true, then presidents since WWII, and especially since Nixon, wouldn't be avoiding Congress at every opportunity. More input from Congress has become to mean every Senator and as many Congressmen as

It might help even more to fully understand all of the above. The article quotes Madison, then gives a "therefore" conclusion which you bolded, except Madison was one of those who felt the responsibilities of treaties should rest solely with the President.

James Madison on the Treaty Power | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

 

[muttly]

From Heritage
The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison's terms, a "partial agency" in the President's foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the "people," no role in the process.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: Treaty Clause

 

[RLENT]

James Madison on the Treaty Power | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

From Heritage
The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison's terms, a "partial agency" in the President's foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the "people," no role in the process.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: Treaty Clause

Yes ... And ???

 

[Turtle]

Yes ... And ???

Madison wrote many things describing the treaty process. Describing something is not the same as advocating it. In the debates prior to the writing of the Constitution, Madison advocated strongly for the power of the treaty to fall to the president alone. He didn't get his wish. As president, however, he went around Congress whenever he could. One of those times is when he refused to inform Congress prior to an agreement he made, that eventually went bad, and he ended up taking us into the War of 1812.

 

[RLENT]

Madison wrote many things describing the treaty process. Describing something is not the same as advocating it. In the debates prior to the writing of the Constitution, Madison advocated strongly for the power of the treaty to fall to the president alone. He didn't get his wish.

Yes ... I was hoping that Muttly would try and assert that Madison's comments on what the treaty provisions of the Constitution were - at a point some seven years after its ratification (1796) - were somehow reflective of what Madison originally thought it should be ... since he appeared to be offering up his links in an effort to refute your earlier comment on Madison's position on the matter.

 

[muttly]

It's his words Ylentl.

 

[muttly]

At the point where they became utterly obsessed with STOPPING Obama - on pretty much anything and everything - they descended, as a body, into ... psychosis ...

And then there are the Obama boot lickers...

 

[RLENT]

It's his words Ylentl.

Yes indeedy ... and it's someone else's STOOPID if they can't differentiate a comment of Madison's on how things presently are ... vs. how things ought to be ...

 

[RLENT]

Barf,

How ya makin' out on comin' up with any answers to the questions I previously asked ?

Still in a Google-frenzy ... or did you just give up and throw in the towel ?

 

[Turtle]

It's his words Ylentl.

Yes, but his words that you keep posting are his words describing how it is in the Constitution, not how he thinks it should be. If I tell you the standard split for fleet owner and driver is 60/40, it doesn't tell you anything at all about my personal feelings on the matter.

In The Journal of the Constitutional Convention, an insanely comprehensive journal that was kept by none other than James Madison himself, he makes his (and the other delegates to the Convention) undeniably clear. His presidency also reflected the same position he held at the Convention. The debates of the Constitutional Convention were understandably varied and complex, as they had just a snotload of issues they were dealing with. But on the topic of the Power of Treaty, many delegates wanted that power to be solely with the president (that was the camp Madison was in), others wanted it to be solely with Congress, with that camp being more or less evenly split in keeping either the solely to the Senate, and the others wanted it to be solely with the House of The People. The compromise is what we have in the Constitution. But the Founding Fathers were by no means united in their views on that issue, or on most issues. Congress back then was he same as it is now, where you can count on one hand how many times they have been united in much of anything.

Which is why I think it's both funny and retarded when people go, "The Founding Fathers wanted it this way!" And then they find one or a handful of Founding Fathers who agree with their position and go, "See! See! See! They wanted it this way!" while completely ignoring the other Founding Fathers who wanted things to be the exact opposite. It's a real hoot, I'm tellin' ya.

Generally speaking, any time someone uses "The Founding Fathers" as part of the basis for their argument, they are engaging in not one, not two, but three separate logical fallacies. One is the appeal to authority, and Madison in this case is particularly apt, where "A is an authority on a subject," and "A says something about the topic," so therefore "A is correct." Another logical fallacy in play is the Generalization Fallacy, where a few of the Founding Fathers' positions are overgeneralized into ALL of the Founding Fathers as having the same position. A subfallacy of the Generalization Fallacy is the Cherry Picking Fallacy, which is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

People are crapping themselves over what they think the Founding Fathers, all of them, mind you, think about this Iran nuclear deal. And they look utterly retarded when they do that. They look precisely as retarded as the people look when they make the claim that the Founding Fathers, all of them mind you, were thinking musket balls and flint rifles when they put that stupid nonsense about the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. The ones who come off as the most retarded, though, are those who know all that and yet will still invoke The Founding Fathers anyway to bolster their argument, because they really got nuthin' else and they're hoping enough people won't see the logical fallacies for what they are and will be ale to convince them to believe as they do.

The reality is, the GOP in particular, and conservatives in general, have been against the Iran nuclear deal long before they even knew the first detail of the agreement. Why? Because Obama is involved, and because Obama wants it. And if Obama wants something, what they want more than anything is for Obama to not get it. In order to be able to thwart Obama getting the deal, before they even knew what the deal was, the GOP passed the Corker Bill so they could later snap the rung out from under him. That backfired. Now the only things in the deal they are even remotely interested in are the things they can cherry pick to use as ammunition against Obama to prevent him from getting what he wants. They couldn't.care.less whether the deal itself is a good one or a bad one. Their arguments against the deal make that abundantly clear.