Which means very little except where the agreements are between honorable countries. Iran is not honorable. the narrow area that we’re negotiating about demonstrates that. We’re not even trying to permanently end their program.
I think the Iranians have shown more intelligence and honor than 47 members of the Senate.
More intelligence, perhaps, but to call the Iranian regime honorable is absurd. This is the #1 terror-supporting regime in the world. And we won’t even negotiate on that because we know they won’t give that up under any circumstances.
that #1 terror-supporting regime is currently battling ISIS. Ever since the Republican war in Iraq, Iran has emerged as the voice of stability and moderation in the region.
No, they are the anti-Sunni side. We can gain from that, but they are not honorable nor for moderation.
If that’s your standard for what is legally binding, then an awful lot of laws on the books are not legally binding. For example, if Congress sanctions on Iran, and the President doesn’t implement them, he isn’t going to be arrested.
They could. If Congress adds to the sanctions: The president of the US is required by law to implement these sanctions. Failure to do so is punishable by X. If he fails to implement the sanctions, they can impeach him and try him for X. And even without that language, he could be impeached and removed from office.
What happens to the US if we back out of an agreement? What punishment will be imposed on us? Are we kicked out of the UN? Kicked off the UNSC?
Not to mention, if a President fails to execute duly passed laws, there are remedies short of impeachment, like not cooperating with his executive actions.
This has **never **been a key question for all other presidents, since the President’s ability to negotiate is set forth in the constitution, and Congress ratifies what he negotiated. How is him exercising his constitutional duties now a “power grab”? Nowhere in the Constitution does it have the Executive Branch asking “pretty please” to Congress while negotiating executive actions or treaties; their duties set forth only occur after the negotiations are complete through ratification.
What makes this President’s constitutional powers different, ya think?
I don’t think anyone questions the President’s power to negotiate. What we’re questioning is whether an agreement is binding on the Senate without their vote to ratify. The administration says pretty clearly that it is not binding, so that at least is settled.
And if a country flouts international law, they may be subject to sanctions or even war.
If a coequal branch of government applying sanctions to another branch is the enforcement mechanism that makes domestic law binding in the absence of criminal penalties; why doesn’t coequal sovereign states applying sanctions on other governments the enforcement mechanism that makes international law binding in the absence of criminal penalties?
There is no authority to impose sanctions. Nations do it on their own, vigilante style.
This is complete bullshit. The entire point of the Cotton letter is to make Iran question Obama’s power to negotiate. “We’re going to be around longer than Obama, and anything you work out with him will need to go through us, the real power players,” it says in a nutshell. And also, “Any agreement you come up with that doesn’t meet the standards of us, the Congress, the real power players, could potentially only last as long as January 2017.” Translation? Don’t trust Obama, he has no real power beyond an executive agreement for less than 2 years.
How in the every living fuck is that supposed to be taken as endorsement of Obama’s power to negotiate treaties?
Depends on the international law one is talking about. Backing out of an agreement cannot be a cause for war* unless the agreement somehow causes a country to be attacked.
*That is, a cause recognized by international law.
Negotiation means talking, bargaining. It does not mean the President has the power to deliver anything. Only Congress can change US law, or appropriate funds, or lift sanctions(depending on the text of the actual sanctions legislation).
Congress can impose punishments on the Executive Branch absent any actual violation of law, “vigilante style.” I just read something the other day about a few House Republicans threatening to cut half the annual funding for the White House, absent any real evidence that the President has broken any law.
So I ask again, why is one coequal branch of government sanctioning another coequal branch evidence of the binding nature of many domestic laws; but one coequal state sanctioning another NOT evidence of the binding nature of international laws?
(I’m ignoring the comment that implies that the United States has no authority to sanction Iran.)
I can imagine scenarios where backing out of an international agreement is cause for war, so I disagree with your broad assertion. E.g., Dirkadirkastan kicks out inspectors or peacekeepers charged with making sure that it does not do something bad. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for basically that reason.
But that violates international law. Without “permission” from the UNSC, countries are not supposed to attack each other unless they are, themselves, under attack.
Now, the US violates this all the time without consequences. Which, I believe, makes the point about international law being pretty toothless wrt the US, even if it might have a lot more teeth for other countries.
You are being inconsistent with your application of these idea that consequences are the determining factor for whether law is binding or not. You simply can’t have it both ways.
To wit:
- If a large country invades another country, the UN will not punish that country for violating the UN Charter, therefore the UN Charter is not binding law.
- If a small country invades another country, the UN will punish that country for violating the UN Charter, therefore the UN Charter is binding law…?
Similarly: - If a President violates some provision of the US Code, the Congress could in theory punish him with impeachment or other sanctions, therefore the US Code is binding law.
- Only two Presidents have been impeached, and none convicted, in the history of the US.
- Other sanctions are pretty rarely applied by Congress. For example, President Obama has repeatedly violated the Budget Act, which requires the submission of a budget in the first week of February each year, and there has been no punishment at all for those actions. Are we then to conclude that the Budget Act is not binding on the President? If so, how do we read the US Code and know which provisions are binding and which are not?
So in one hand, the inability of the UN to punish the United States is taken as evidence that international law is not binding as a general matter. On the other hand, we can easily point to multitudes of examples of the Executive Branch disregarding many provisions of the US Code, and no punishment is meted out. How can one not conclude that if the UN Charter isn’t binding because there’s rarely punishment, that the US Code is not binding because there’s rarely punishment?
Y’all really got to pick one standard for whether law is binding or not and stick with it. My standard is that if it’s written down, it purports to be law and doesn’t offer discretion on whether or not one ought to comply, and it’s generally accepted as law, then its law regardless of the consequences of violation.
Was the Soviet Union honorable? Yet American presidents negotiated treaties with them, and not regrettably.