The Republicans' letter to Iran

[ksen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ans-pen-letter-to-iran-supreme-leader/387223/

It used to be said that politics stopped at the water's edge. Increasingly, that doesn't seem to be the case.

The latest indication: a letter from 47 Republican senators, most of the GOP caucus, to the supreme leader of Iran. The letter, organized by Arkansas's Tom Cotton and first reported by Josh Rogin, notes that any deal President Obama makes with Iranian negotiators about nuclear enrichment is not a duly ratified treaty and could be reversed once Obama leaves office in less than two years. That comes a week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress—a speech arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without first consulting the White House.

Think what you will of the president, but foreign affairs and treaty negotiations are constitutionally his.

I know, I know the rebuttal will be, "But President Obama ignores the Constitution every day!!!1!!"

Let's say that's true . . . so what? Does one branch ignoring the Constitution give the other branches permission to do it too? I guess if the branches were still in elementary school that argument would fly. But among adults it should be treated like the infantile whine it is.

The letter starts:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system

Maybe before writing something like that you should make sure you do fully understand our constitutional system because these 47 republicans clearly don't.

From the Constitution:

[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties,

 

[dismal]

I know, I know the rebuttal will be, "But President Obama ignores the Constitution every day!!!1!!"

Actually I imagine the argument would be "sending a letter is not making a treaty".

 

[ksen]

I know, I know the rebuttal will be, "But President Obama ignores the Constitution every day!!!1!!"

Actually I imagine the argument would be "sending a letter is not making a treaty".

Sure, sending a letter isn't making a treaty. But sending that letter is an attempt to unmake a treaty before the president is done negotiating. The senate's role is to ratify a treaty the president has negotiated, not to send a letter to our enemy warning them about the president's power to negotiate a deal.

What happened to politics stops at the water's edge?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Treaties need to be approved by the Senate, and the Senate has in the past refused to pass treaties, the League of Nations being a huge one. The vocal disdain in this case, however, is really creating a vile environment in the American Government, where the opposition party will do just about anything to make Obama look bad. The unprescedented "You Lie" retort during an Obama address, the unprecedented obstruction of nominees and legislation in Congress, the Netanyahu speech, and now this extremely public and in the open letter from the Republican Party to a foreign nation?

This stuff is dangerous. The Senate doesn't have to approve the Treaty, and they shouldn't if they don't think it is a good treaty. The question is, would they reject it simply because of the person in the White House? The answer is yes and mulling around with foreign policy on a partisan line is a long-term dangerous ploy.

 

[dismal]

Actually I imagine the argument would be "sending a letter is not making a treaty".

Sure, sending a letter isn't making a treaty. But sending that letter is an attempt to unmake a treaty before the president is done negotiating. The senate's role is to ratify a treaty the president has negotiated, not to send a letter to our enemy warning them about the president's power to negotiate a deal.

What happened to politics stops at the water's edge?

Obama didn't get the senate on board with his plan, apparently.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The Act was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.[1]

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm hoping that this will finally contribute to the backlash I've been waiting for my entire life. There's good reason to hope that it will: Obama's popularity is growing, a rare event for the second half of a presidential second term, and in their extreme gerrymandering, there are plenty of republican districts that were made with very slender majorities, vulnerable to demographic shifts, as well as even a slight shift in public sentiment. They've done all they can to shore up their base, but at the cost of losing the middle, I hope.

In the meantime, they go on sabotaging my country. At this point, I don't care as much. I am angry at them, sure, but I am angry at them for a lot of things. If our foreign policy collapses in the process of getting rid of the neo-cons once and for all, it is a price worth paying. Push comes to shove, all we need are Canada and Mexico as allies, anyway. Its good to have more, but there are plenty we would benefit from getting rid of, too.

 

[dismal]

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The Act was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.[1]

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Hmm, you appear to be grasping at an act that most people think is blatantly unconstitutional, has a rather disturbing history if you're not a fascist, and has been on the books for 200 years without a single prosecution.

Good luck!

 

[ideologyhunter]

Why/How would this be their Waterloo? Their deregulation mania nearly capsized the world economy six years ago. Are they hurting any, from that? Their idol put our superpower economy on debt service back in '81 -- do they accept any blame for the debt? Their last president committed an act of negligence in August of 2001 that forced us into a necessary war -- then he and his VP got us into a second, totally destructive and unnecessary war. (Had these men been Democrats, the Republicans would have impeached them, and Rush Limbaugh would lead every broadcast with a reminder that a U.S. President had ignored a direct warning of a new terrorist plan to attack to us.)
The G.O.P. is a disgraceful, destructive organization with an unbeatable propaganda wing. They've climbed out of the slime before, and they'll do it again. They're rich and powerful. They've destroyed economies and (relatively) peaceful times before, and they'll do it again. They've got mojo.

 

[Sarpedon]

That's a good question, ideologyhunter. Everything you say is true. I don't have much rational to say back, other than they seem desperate, their conference is in tatters, unable to unite behind anything besides opposition to the president, they are wasting a huge amount of money fighting one another, their bankrolling billionaires seem to be having differences with each other, and what is more, they seem to be losing the macho appeal that they have always relied on to sell their brand to the proud rural poor that makes up much of their base.

And, more than anything else, the people of the USA don't want another war. By desperately trying to throw us into one, they may finally break their own back on one issue the people won't budge on. Sure, they've budged in the past, but this whole absurd episode has made them look like the extremists (and they are) and the Iranians as reasonable and moderate.

But, as you say, I've been hoping for this backlash my whole life, and it never seems to come, no matter what they do.

 

[ksen]

Iran responds

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

BOOSH!

 

[ksen]

from the same response

The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”

good job guys! :clap:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A correction, this is a deal, not a treaty, so Senate oversight isn't as structured. Regardless, the Republican Party seems to think the Executive Branch has no power unless a Republican is in charge.

 

[SimpleDon]

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The Act was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.[1]

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

I do think that this act applies to Republicans. The most balant violation of it in my memory was when Reagan's campaign people negotiated with the Iranians to keep the embassy hostages until he was elected to prevent an October surprise that might get Carter re-elected. In return the Iranians got arms for the hostages. Without question the start of our problems with terrorism, when they realized that we would negotiate with terrorists and they could gain something from us.

 

[ksen]

Remember when McConnell said this was the republican's chance to show they could govern?

Is this letter part of that?

 

[SimpleDon]

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The Act was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.[1]

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Hmm, you appear to be grasping at an act that most people think is blatantly unconstitutional, has a rather disturbing history if you're not a fascist, and has been on the books for 200 years without a single prosecution.

Good luck!

See, our resident constitutional scholar has ruled it unconstitutional so no one has to follow it!

 

[Frikki]

Hmm, you appear to be grasping at an act that most people think is blatantly unconstitutional, has a rather disturbing history if you're not a fascist, and has been on the books for 200 years without a single prosecution.

Good luck!

See, our resident constitutional scholar has ruled it unconstitutional so no one has to follow it!

The Teabaggers have the Constitutional knowledge of concussed ducklings.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've always maintained that 9/11 was allowed to happen because of the giant self-congratulatory circle jerk the Republican were having after Bush and his cronies got elected. It will happen again if they take the White house in the next go round, if not sooner.

 

[SimpleDon]

A correction, this is a deal, not a treaty, so Senate oversight isn't as structured. Regardless, the Republican Party seems to think the Executive Branch has no power unless a Republican is in charge.

Is there even a deal yet for the Republicans to disagree with? Or is this a preemptive move, assuming that Obama can't negotiate a reasonable deal because of his blackness?

 

[dismal]

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The Act was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.[1]

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

I do think that this act applies to Republicans. The most balant violation of it in my memory was when Reagan's campaign people negotiated with the Iranians to keep the embassy hostages until he was elected to prevent an October surprise that might get Carter re-elected. In return the Iranians got arms for the hostages. Without question the start of our problems with terrorism, when they realized that we would negotiate with terrorists and they could gain something from us.

Historically it doesn't apply to anybody.

Unfortunately for the wise and benevolent left, we just don't have much history of locking up opposition leaders for engaging in speech not sanctioned by the Dear Leader.