Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran Nuke Deal: Treaty or Executive Agreement?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iran Nuke Deal: Treaty or Executive Agreement?

    We keep hearing from Maobama's spokes-idiots that he has the authority to conclude an agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program without submitting it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty or any other enabling legislation from Congress. Unsurprisingly, the State Department actually has rules for determining whether or not international agreements can be concluded on executive authority or require congressional advice and/or consent...
    11 FAM 723 EXERCISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT POWER

    11 FAM 723.1 Determination of Type of Agreement
    (CT:POL-44; 05-26-2006)


    The following considerations will be taken into account along with other relevant factors in determining whether an international agreement shall be dealt with by the United States as a treaty to be brought into force with the advice and consent of the Senate or as an agreement to be brought into force on some other constitutional basis.

    11 FAM 723.2 Constitutional Requirements
    (CT:POL-48; 09-25-2006)


    There are two procedures under the Constitution through which the United States becomes a party to an international agreement. Those procedures and the constitutional parameters of each are found below.
    11 FAM 723.2-1 Treaties
    (CT:POL-44; 05-26-2006)


    International agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the United States takes place only after the Senate has given its advice and consent are “treaties.” The President, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, may enter into an international agreement on any subject genuinely of concern in foreign relations, so long as the agreement does not contravene the United States Constitution.

    11 FAM 723.2-2 International Agreements Other Than Treaties
    (CT:POL-48; 09-25-2006)


    International agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are “international agreements other than treaties.” (The term “sole executive agreement” is appropriately reserved for agreements made solely on the basis of the constitutional authority of the President.) There are three constitutional bases for international agreements other than treaties as set forth below. An international agreement may be concluded pursuant to one or more of these constitutional bases:
    (1) Treaty;
    (2) Legislation;
    (3) Constitutional authority of the President.

    [...]
    11 FAM 723.2-2(C) Agreements Pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President
    (CT:POL-48; 09-25-2006)


    The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:
    (1) The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;
    (2) The President's authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and to recognize foreign governments;
    (3) The President's authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and
    (4) The President's authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

    11 FAM 723.3 Considerations for Selecting Among Constitutionally Authorized Procedures
    (CT:POL-44; 05-26-2006)


    In determining a question as to the procedure which should be followed for any particular international agreement, due consideration is given to the following factors along with those in 11 FAM 723.2:
    (1) The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole;
    (2) Whether the agreement is intended to affect state laws;
    (3) Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress;
    (4) Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements;
    (5) The preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement;
    (6) The degree of formality desired for an agreement;
    (7) The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of concluding a routine or short-term agreement; and
    (8) The general international practice as to similar agreements.

    In determining whether any international agreement should be brought into force as a treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty, the utmost care is to be exercised to avoid any invasion or compromise of the constitutional powers of the President, the Senate, and the Congress as a whole.

    If Maobama concludes an executive agreement along the lines of the recent framework agreement, would he be violating 11 FAM 723 EXERCISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT POWER?
    8
    Can be concluded on executive authority with no congressional approval.
    0.00%
    0
    Can be concluded pursuant to the original UN treaty with no congressional approval.
    0.00%
    0
    Requires ratification by 2/3 of the Senate as a Treaty.
    62.50%
    5
    Requires enabling legislation from Congress/
    37.50%
    3
    Last edited by The Doctor; 07 Apr 15, 10:09.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    Since it is a total failure that allows Iran to keep its nuclear enrichment program and gain nuclear weapons in the immediate future, it makes no difference how it was arranged. It's BoBo's failure and his alone, another failure caused by his massive and criminal incompetency.

    That is all that matters, not your highly biased "poll".

    Obama, like Hitler, will go down in history as the man responsible for genocide against the Jewish people, the stated goal of the Iranian government, and probably for the subsequent destruction of the Middle East as well.

    Almost certainly, Israel will preemptively attack Iran under these circumstances, and BoBo will own that disaster as well.


    Put that in your poll...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ear-13-israel/
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Since it is a total failure that allows Iran to keep its nuclear enrichment program and gain nuclear weapons in the immediate future, it makes no difference how it was arranged. It's BoBo's failure and his alone, another failure caused by his massive and criminal incompetency.

      That is all that matters, not your highly biased "poll".

      Obama, like Hitler, will go down in history as the man responsible for genocide against the Jewish people, the stated goal of the Iranian government, and probably for the subsequent destruction of the Middle East as well.

      Almost certainly, Israel will preemptively attack Iran under these circumstances, and BoBo will own that disaster as well.


      Put that in your poll...

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ear-13-israel/
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Sorry, Doc...I'm sure your comments are both interesting and relevant, but I'm under strict orders to ignore you from the forum management.
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      So you have no idea what the post actually says?
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        Post a graph...
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X