Any treaty can be ended by the President unilaterally. There is no Senate vote to end the obligations of the U.S. under any treaty.
So by your definition, are treaties legally binding?
D’Anconia, did you rail against GWB’s unilaterally, non-Congressionally-approved withdrawal from the ABM Treaty of 1972 (which was ratified by the Senate)?
How about his status of forces agreement with Iraq, which was not submitted to the Senate? Or any of the other 17,000 executive agreements concluded without Congressional approval since 1947?
This is a multilateral agreement. Legislative pre-ratification by every power involved is simply impractical. I would say the same thing if President Jeb was concluding a treaty with other G7 members.
ETA: what does this have to do with usurpation of power from The People? You can vote for the POTUS. You can’t vote for 99 of the 100 Senators.
I’m not sure that is true. Do you have a cite?
No, you cannot vote the POTUS, who is not elected by popular vote.
Wouldn’t that be 98 of the 100 Senators? 
I’m happy to. But just for my own edification, how do you think the U.S. would withdraw from a treaty? You think Congress gets to vote on it?
As I said, I don’t know. That’s why I am asking. TIA.
They don’t. The POTUS gets to abrogate treaties as he likes (in practice: SCOTUS refuses to address such disputes as political questions), though Congress can choose to retain implementing legislation in the case of treaties that require it. In practice, that’s a fool’s errand since the other side is unlikely to maintain its own treaty obligations if the US head of state is refusing to. Indeed, the Senate is undemocratic by design.
Not directly elected by popular vote, true, but Obama was in fact elected by an absolute majority of votes cast. I would agree that a POTUS elected with the smaller share of the popular vote would not be a better representative of the people than the Senate. Especially since the Senate as presently composed actually represents a minority of the votes cast.
Okay, 98 of 100. :smack:
But thanks to the Roberts court, if you have Koch or Adelson money, you can buy them.
Thank you.
No problem.
You also may be interested to know that the Algiers Accords was negotiated between Iran and the U.S. in 1980. It ended the hostage crisis. Among its provisions is that Americans could not seek to sue Iran for various things, like for example being held hostage by them. Courts have ruled several times over the years to dismiss lawsuits that would violate the Algiers Accords. Depending how you define “legally binding,” one could easily find that if courts act like the accords prohibit something, and use that as the basis for their rulings, then the executive agreement is legally binding. What do you think about that?
Which courts? Was this tested at the Supreme Court level?
The Supreme Court: United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U.S. 52 (1989).
Nonsense. That ruling upheld Section 502 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1986 and 1987, saying that Section 502 wasn’t a violation of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It was a technical judgment about user fees. The Court did not rule on the Algiers Accords, itself.
Huh? It’s an example (not the only one) of the Court resolving a dispute based in part on the terms of the Algiers Accords. The Court noted, for example, that:
Their understanding of what the Accord did and required was the context necessary to resolve the dispute over 502, not to mention their tacit approval of the Accord creating enforceable legal rights.
I believe that you are correct. My bad.
ETA: my fault for only reading a summary, and not the entire decision. You were right.
D’Aconia, Terr, or anyone else who wants to step into this…what’s your plan? Say you get your fondest wish and this deal goes down in flames. Then what? What are the options?
Abject surrender, I suppose, Iran throws herself at our feet and pleads for mercy. So, that’s one.
We keep the pressure on, and start the groundwork for a “better deal”, one that bears a strong resemblance to Option One, outlined above. Which leaves Iran in the somewhat more admirable position of “Hey, we tried, but the Congress of the Great Satan does not want to relent in its war against Islam. Which is pretty solid proof that we need this atom bomb thing to keep them from invading us.”
Thing is, they’ll have a point. What do we say? “Hey, we haven’t invaded a country for no good reason in years!”
Our allies standing firm with us on the sanctions, they’ll just ignore that? And stick with us as we propose more years of talks for the hopeless goal of a “better deal”?
If one of them breaks out, and starts raking in the bucks trading with Iran, how long are the rest of them just going to stand there and watch? Say its Spain, just to pick one. How long will Germany or France hold out, or will they just sell the stuff to Spain knowing where it will end up? And just watch Spain pocket a tidy profit?
Iran will suffer trade sanctions just with us. Hah, no Beyoncé videos for you! That’ll learn you!
So, then they are making their bomb, they are trading pretty freely, and they don’t have to do anything for us.
Well, that’s all I got, being a boor of little brain. I’ll let you smart guys come up with the better plans. Terr, D’aconia, please proceed.
The real GOP plan: Act tough, do nothing, threaten with bombs and sanctions, and eventually the heathens will convert to Christianity
Someone like Trump, who seems to be the Republican’s ID right now, would first say he’s not sitting down with Iran at all until some preconditions are met, probably releasing the 4 Americans, affirming Israel’s right to exist, stop all terrorism funding. Iran will never do that and talks will never get off the ground.
Senator Debbie Stabenow announced her support for the deal. For the Senate, the whip count for supporters and leaners is up to 32. Supporters only need 2 of the 11 undecided Senators to prevent an overturning of an assumed presidential veto. I think it’s even possible Democrats will get more than the 40 required to filibuster any rejection of the deal, but that’s not even necessary.