PDA

View Full Version : Obama’s nuke deal with Iran has no basis in law! Trump needs to scrap it.




johnwk
04-25-2018, 10:30 AM
We are told that Obama’s nuke deal is not a treaty but a “Sole Executive Agreement”, and therefore, it does not require a two thirds approval vote by the United States Senate to have the force of law.

Of course, this assertion raises an immediate red flag because there is no mention in our Constitution delegating a power to the president to make a “Sole Executive Agreement” with foreign governments. As a matter of fact the limited power granted to the President in our Constitution regarding deals with foreign governments is stated as follows:

The President “… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

So, what is meant by the word “treaty” as the word was used and understood by our founders, and requires a two thirds approval vote by our Senate to have the force of law? In Federalist No. 64 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed64.asp) Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:

”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”


And in Federalist No. 75 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed75.asp) Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, “Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…” So, we begin to learn that the word treaty as found in our Constitution is synonymous with a contract or bargain.

In addition to Hamilton’s use of the word “CONTRACTS” to describe a “treaty”, he goes on to explain why the president was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote. Hamilton points out the president, if he had such power:

“might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

So, as it turns out, our founders intentionally commanded by our Constitution, that any deals cooked up by the president with a foreign power would not have “the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate.

It is also important to note how much our founders feared an omnipotent president, and this is established when they refused giving the President Line-item veto power! Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how they suffered under that power and why it should not be given to the president. Franklin says:

'”The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''

After reviewing the above documentation it becomes crystal clear that Obama’s nuke deal with Iran has no force of law unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate. And this is another mess made by Obama which President Trump needs to clean up so as to be within the four corners of our Constitution.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

jmdrake
04-25-2018, 10:57 AM
Considering the fact that, so far, Iran has actually abided by the deal, why scrap it? What is the "need" for us to scrap it?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OigCNTT_QM

Ender
04-25-2018, 11:18 AM
jmdrake:

Considering the fact that, so far, Iran has actually abided by the deal, why scrap it? What is the "need" for us to scrap it?

There isn't. :rolleyes: And this is one of the best things that Obama ever did.

If someone wants to talk "constitutional" let's talk about the unconstitutional coup that the US did with the takeover of Iran in 1953. They've never been forgiven for taking their country back & for wanting ownership of their own oil.

Iran is THE prime target of all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL wars in the ME- so perhaps we should stop bombing others before we talk about doing away with something that is actually a peaceful step in the right direction.

Iran also signed and abided with the Nuclear Treaty while Israel did not.

Israel now has about 400 nuclear warheads but Iran's the bad guy- go figure.

goldenequity
04-25-2018, 12:00 PM
Total slime weasels... so NOW they want to cry 'Constitution'.
ALL of them are liars, thieves and deceivers. Worst gov't EVER evolved on the planet.
Every action is rationalized, every murder is justified, every lie is explained..
no integrity. none.

same with Micron...
BREAKING: France will not leave #IranNuclearDeal -/EmmanuelMacron
(it's ALL about the money... the lucrative energy contracts with TOTAL and Iran.. if the 'deal' gets tossed... Fr becomes a US sanction TARGET.
NONE of it has to do with ethics or promises kept. )

enhanced_deficit
04-25-2018, 12:06 PM
Good point.

On related note, does Obama Israel deal of $30Billion taxpayers aid have basis and Trump needs to keep it?

goldenequity
04-25-2018, 12:24 PM
Good point.

On related note, does Obama Israel deal of $30Billion taxpayers aid have basis and Trump needs to keep it?

That 'deal' is stretched across 10 years... and no 'aid' package (to Israel) has ever been revoked... other 'aid' promises have... Pakistan comes to mind.

enhanced_deficit
04-25-2018, 12:36 PM
Ok, OP point was about basis. Historic precedence is a consideration but not very important esp for a disruptor in chief leader.
Pragmatically, Iran deal blowback factor is probably negligible compared to Israel deal's.

BTW, though Trump called the deal 'insane', Iran's leader may have crossed the line (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521636-Controversial-Israeli-minister-and-racist-Lieberman-arrives-in-D-C-to-take-on-Iran-Deal&p=6621441&viewfull=1#post6621441):


Rouhani insults Trump as Iran nuclear deal hangs in balance

"You don't have any background in politics," Reuters quoted him saying in comments directed at Trump. "You don't have any background in law. You don't have any background on international treaties."
Rouhani added: "How can a tradesman, a merchant, a building constructor, a tower constructor make judgments about international affairs?"