No, the trade of arms is an exercise in foreign relations, not commanding troops. Haven’t you noticed that the State Department has responsibility for arms sales?
Lifting sanctions isn’t a congressional prerogative. Read the friggin’ law.
Age isn’t the issue. It’s the political environment that produced it. Threatened war with France, the republic was tested and found wanting when Congress just upped and legislated away our basic rights.
The Logan Act remains on the books only because they haven’t tried to put anyone in jail.
It is, Congress often puts conditions on the lifting of sanctions.
In 1819, the legislature of New Hampshire passed a law declaring that Dartmouth College was henceforth to be a public institution, and the governor of New Hampshire would have the power to appoint trustees. The US Supreme Court overturned this legislation, finding that the corporation itself had the same rights under the constitution as a human person would, including the right to remain private and not become a public college.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 250 (1819):
That may well be true but it remains a law that someone can be prosecuted for violating. If the courts decide it is old and should be struck down so be it.
I thought that was more about corporate rights than corporate personhood.
EDIT to add:
Yeah, but the administration has to think about the politics of it too. What that would be would be basically impeachment in reverse, which doesn’t tend to work out too well unless your case is airtight.
Have you read the law?
And do you think that this issue is more unprecedented than Nixon’s negotiations of secret “understandings” with South Vietnam following the Paris peace talks?
“. . . the right to enter into contract agreements with the same protections as individual people.” is personhood. That’s what personhood is. From Blackstone:
The 14th Amendment did not exist in 1819 with the Dartmouth decision. It did exist and was applied in the Santa Clara County case.
So maybe it is better to say corporations became more of a person in the Santa Clara case.
The Fifth Amendment did, though. And neither the 5th or 14th amendment changes the definition of person…they just guarantee that rights will be legally protected.
As far as I am aware there is no 5th amendment protection for corporations.
The 14th amendment* just basically said that the 5th amendment, and others, applied to the States. It didn’t really change things for the federal government.
*1st section. That’s the part most people mean when they talk about the 14th. Not so much sections 2 and 3.
Can you explain what differentiates these different types of agreements?
Not comprehensively. In very general terms, both are commitments between nations, but while treaties are always binding under international law, executive agreements can be binding or non-binding under international law. Domestically, a treaty has the force of federal law, though whether it is self-executing or requires additional implementing legislation depends on the content. Whether an agreement must be ratified as a treaty under domestic law depends on the content, among other factors.
I can, however, point you to some good resources:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88317.pdf (Department of State explanation of executive agreements)
http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/51-4/51arizlrev1035.pdf (discussing of the law of sole executive agreements)
http://www.lawfareblog.com/ (commentary on the Senator’s letter from today and yesterday)
At the most simple level, in cases where the President is exercising only such powers as he has under the Constitution or has been given by statute, or in matters that are rather inconsequential to Congress (like if some tiny part of the U.S.-Canada border has been surveyed again and the border should run to the left of some hill, rather than on the ridgeline) an executive agreement is a valid way to conduct business.
In contrast, where new law is necessary, a treaty is pretty much required.
The articles are similar. Except the Breitbart piece points out several other incidences of Democrats doing it.
-John Sparkman and George McGovern in 1975
-Teddy Kennedy in 1983
-Jim Wright in 1984 (as well as the 1987 one)
- John Kerry in 1985
Jim McDermott, David Bonior and Mike Thompson in 2002
-Jay Rockefeller in 2002
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my question. The context is the assertion in this thread that while treaties require ratification by the Senate, executive agreements cannot. This raises the question as to whether a president could make what are effectively treaties but dispense with the “ratification by the senate” part simply by labeling it an executive agreement instead of a treaty. To the extent that there are some things that cannot be done by executive agreement and must be done by treaty, that would be a limiting factor. My question, then, is what are those things, or in what circumstances would the president be required to make a “treaty” and not an “executive agreement”, such that the agreement would not take effect without senate ratification. (To the extent that Ravenman addressed this, the only thing I can figure is that it’s only where new laws are required, which would seem to make the “advice and consent” senate role in treaties completely moot.)
And the answer, and laid out in all three links I provided, is: we don’t know for sure.
It’s clear that the important factors are:
[ul]
[li]The extent to which the authority exercised by the President is explicit in the Constitution[/li][li]The extent to which Congress has expressed its view on the subject through legislation[/li][li]The extent of conflict with state laws[/li][li]Whether the agreement needs to be binding under the Vienna Convention[/li][li]The duration of the agreement[/li][li]Whether the subject matter is something historically done by agreement vs. treaty[/li][li]Whether the agreement can be given effect without legislation[/li][/ul]
I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m not sure how those links don’t answer your question.
Did you read the State Department document, specifically page 4 where the title is, “Considerations for Selecting Among Constitutionally Authorized Procedures?”