So, Let me get this straight

[Hobo]

If I read my constitution correctly, the president conducts foreign policy. If he signs a treaty with another country the Senate gets to ratify it or not. I am sorry but please explain how the opposition party states that it is being bypassed? If or when an agreement is reached the senate gets to vote on it. What am I missing here?


TIA

Hobo

[djean111]

1. Obstruction and embarrassment and racism and scoring campaign points and campaign money.

I am not really surprised though - Obama was in their face about executive orders, now that he does not have to worry about reelection (to almost ALL politicians - do you know how fucked up that is - first, second and third order of the day is reelection, not governing?) - and they are tripling down on the response they were going to give anyway. There is no point, IMO, in looking for logic or reason within the GOP, this is like the OK Corral, except they are shooting at Americans, not each other. No, not blaming this on Obama, the GOP are just like cornered little delinquents, and they have to answer to folks like the Kochs and AIPAC and the MIC.

If the GOP can, they will negate the last six years, waste the next two, and have us embroiled in war on two fronts. We are caught between Corporatocracy and fundamentalism and greed. Wonder who will, though, be joining hands and singing Kum Bah Ya over the TPP. No clue, really, that this is a bad thing, if the GOP are swooning over the chance to cooperate with Obama in this one thing?

Depending on who the Democrats run/may elect, I am not looking forward to anything with hope at all. GOP or Wall Street.
The campaign songs might as well be the O'Jays' For the Love of Money. Both parties.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. There need not even be a treaty.

The constitution, and centuries of precedent, give the executive nearly unfettered power to conduct foreign affairs. Congress is only involved in the allocation of funds, declaration of war, and the ratification of treaties, but all of those obstacles can be and are and have been avoided by the executive branch from the beginning of the republic.

So they can bluster and sputter all they want, but it is just republicans being spoiled little bratty babies, which is something they excel at.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Trie but if one president strikes a deal that does not involve Congress subsequent presidents

are not bound by the terms of that deal.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Sure, but if that deal also involves other nations

it is pretty near impossible for the next administration to walk away from it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. That's a political consideration, not a legal obligation.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. correct.

The point is that Obama doesn't need the senate, nor have other presidents. The Iran deal can go down and the senate can sit on the sidelines and cry like a baby.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. What kind of deal, though?

Sanctions carry the force of law. If a president doesn't gain agreement with congress the sanctions remain in place.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. he can sign an EO setting aside the sanctions and congress can go fetch.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. EOs cannot abrogate or make law.

EOs can only effect how executive departments conduct their internal processes and policies. If an EO conflicts with the law the law trumps.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. See other explanations in this op.

You are quibbling over the wording. The EO won't "make or abrogate" a law, it will define an interpretation of the implementation of existing law that does the same thing. This is done all the time. As others have pointed out the sanctions law most likely contains more than sufficient verbage to give the executive ample room to implement as he sees fit, including not implementing at all.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. Simply: They're upset that the president can sign a deal

Without getting it approved by Congress first.

[Fred Sanders]

8. They are upset a BLACK President can...Raygun signed 1500 executive agreements....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. "Raygun signed 1500 executive agreements"

None of which carried the force of law and all could be undone by the stroke of a pen.

[gregcrawford]

9. As I read the Logan Act...

... these weasels are incontrovertibly in violation of it, with ZERO wiggle room. Take 'em DOWN and jail their evil asses!

[Telcontar]

11. You taking Pelosi too?

Consistency ya know.

[rtracey]

13. Never

Never going to happen. Our country has turned into an ideal situation for anyone who is in public service. Our federal and state governments can get away with anything, and will not be turned on by their peers. Case in point.... ethics committees findings. Most findings in ethics committees are usually met with a censure if not cleared. It's a big act....."Oh Senator Blah Blah will be censured on this, and will receive a letter from the Senate stating the censure"....and then senate closes shop for the day and Senator Blah Blah and his senator friends go drink, eat and have a great time on our dime.....

Did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al face any war crimes trials.....nooooo

Will Colin Powell be grilled for his private e-mail use like Hillary Clinton will be.......noooo

Will any of the previous Sec of States, et.al be grilled about the many embassy and consulate attacks on the Bush presidency watch....noooo

The Logan act will not be used.....unless we elect a president who is not afraid of not being reelected. If a president is elected and claims his priority is serving the people of this country, then he/she should be willing to fight at all cost to preserve and protect the people, foreign and domestic......that includes the Senate and House....at least it seems to have been in the past. I find it interesting that past Senators and Congressmen/women were more tuned into the people not themselves...

[rtracey]

10. The 47 Senators- political folly

Ok so here is where the 47 Senators sending that letter to Iran is simply a grandstand and political idiotic thought. Many who serve in our government claim they are about the constitution, but have barely read it. If the Senators who wrote the letter knew what the constitution said, then its all just showboating...

The Treaty Clause empowers the President to conclude treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. In contrast, normal legislation becomes law after approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Treaties require a supermajority because of their elevated legal standing in comparison to congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. As articulated in the Supremacy Clause, treaties constitute the "supreme law of the land".

So basically, all treaties the president enacts must be ratified by the Senate. This includes brokered deals involving the US. So the 47 knew this and played BS politics anyway. I thought this new congress was all about working together.......nope

Some ask if a treaty can override the constitution....no

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

So 47 Senators, try reading the constitution instead of acting like asses.

[rock]

12. Ah, you're not a six-year-old

Are you?

[onecaliberal]

14. Exactly, the job of the Senate is to advise and consent.

Perhaps they could go to their own US Senate Website to read about what their actual jobs are.

[jeff47]

16. You're missing how sanctions are passed and enforced.

Most of the time, a sanctions law is "the executive branch may apply sanctions". Or "apply sanctions to countries designated as ______".

The first does not mean the executive branch has to apply sanctions. In the second case, the executive branch can remove the "evil" designation to remove sanctions.

Neither change requires Congressional action.