Trump to get Nobel for Iran Deal

jem · May 12, 2018

you are writing propaganda.

treaty law is irrelevant to the Iran "deal". Obama did not have congress on his side so he did that detritus on his own. No country is fooled. They have diplomats they know the difference between a treaty and a short term deal with a president with an election cycle fuse.

2. you are calling that unilateral unicorn a great achievement when it gave cover to Iran to develop missiles and get to zero breakout time for nukes... and it gave them billions to fund terrorism. There was nothing good about that deal for world safety. The only good for the west was for those who wish to export bomb tech and terror tech into Iran.

Obama himself stated that end the end of his deal Iran would be at zero breakout time to nukes. This deal gave them cover and made it that much harder for isreal or others to take out their nukes.

Isreal just provided documents which showed most of those other points were not being honored or properly monitored.

It was a pig dressed in detritus.

piezoe said:
Of course treaties are not statutory law, but they become, nevertheless, "the supreme land of the land" much in the same way a statute is. As a practical matter some treaties do affect domestic law and others do not. Congress may pass laws that are needed to implement a treaty. The President has the power to make treaties but only with concurrence of the Senate. But what is needed to withdraw from a treaty. Does this require Senate concurrence? Apparently not.

The Constitution is silent on this matter. One could not be faulted for thinking that since Senate concurrence is needed to implement a treaty, logically it is needed to withdraw. Apparently this is not the case, however, if we are to use precedence as a guide. One example, the one I cited earlier, is Carter's withdrawal from our mutual defense pact with Taiwan. This defense pact was a formal treaty, and it had the effect of being the "Supreme law of the land." Carter withdrew the United States from the Treaty without Senate approval. Senator Goldwater sued saying Carter had exceeded his constitutional authority. The case quickly made it's way from District Court through the Appeals Court to the Supreme Court The Supreme Court agreed 6 to 3 that the matter was political and should not be heard by the Court. They remanded it back to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. A current Court might very well rule differently, particularly were Congress to first take some definite action, such as adopting a Resolution against the President's unilateral action without Senate approval. There was no formal action taken by the Senate in the example cited, and that was probably a mistake on the Senate's part.

We learn then that a distinction between law created by a treaty and the law created by a statute is that the latter may not be vacated by unilateral action of the President whereas the former can be. Thus executive agreements between the United States and other countries of the type that do not affect domestic law become, in their effect, little different from treaties. The President may use this to make what are in effect treaties without having to get Senate approval, and thus circumvent domestic politics.

I am virtually certain that at some point the issue of whether a treaty may be vacated by the Executive without Senate concurrence will be revisited. The result is liable to be different the next time. If it is, then at that point we are only a small step from recognizing that these extra-constitutional agreements between the executive and another nation are treaties, and therefore Senate approval is needed. ("extra-constitutional" does not mean "unconstitutional.")

Although your point that "Masterful, historically “greatest of all time” diplomatic agreements should have been approved by 2/3 Senate and [be] formally called a Treaty," is well taken, and I completely agree. Nevertheless the magnitude of the achievement of the "Iran Deal" is in no way diminished by what should have been. Regardless, it was, and is, a magnificent and astounding diplomatic achievement, made all the more so in face of the fierce opposition from Netanyahu's Israel at a time when bucking Israel was akin to political suicide. Is it any wonder that the negotiations could not have come to a productive end if the agreement had had to pass through the U.S. Senate in the form of a formal treaty? Sometimes, to do the right thing, a way around the law must be found.
More...

bone · May 12, 2018

jem said:
you are writing propaganda.
More...

More precisely he’s regurgitating the BBC’s propaganda

bone · May 12, 2018

piezoe said:
Possibly a dismissive attitude toward our European allies reveals an ignorance of world affairs and a overly provincial viewpoint
More...

I read the BBC article you cite differently - I think it details a dismissive condescending attitude the Europeans (P5+1) harbor towards Iran’s regional neighbors and the legitimate security stakeholders. Smacks of colonialism to me.

piezoe · May 12, 2018

jem said:
on his own
More...

with five other nations and the United Nations of course. Probably "on his own" is not exactly what you meant.

piezoe · May 12, 2018

bone said:
I read the BBC article you cite differently - I think it details a dismissive condescending attitude the Europeans (P5+1) harbor towards Iran’s regional neighbors and the legitimate security stakeholders. Smacks of colonialism to me.
More...

It could be read that way.

bone · May 12, 2018

piezoe said:
with five other nations and the United Nations of course. Probably "on his own" is not exactly what you meant.
More...

Well, the deal was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council - which is composed of the P5 +1 nations; so, six votes ? I don’t think that the United Nations collectively voted. But you’re right - Obama wasn’t necessarily “on his own” outside the United States. But the Obama Executive Branch was on its own domestically.

bone · May 12, 2018

Relying upon the IAEA for nuclear weapons enforcement is akin to FIFA’s regulation of World Cup Soccer. Enforcement of the Iran deal was a farce.

Did you know that France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Lord knows who else has developed an organic nuclear weapons under the careful scrutiny of the IAEA ?

When the US and the Soviets entered into nuclear weapons treaties they didn’t want the stooges at the IAEA anywhere near the verification protocols - there were US inspectors on Soviet ground and Soviet inspectors on US ground. For inspection, inventory, and for the destruction phases. That should tell you everything you need to know about IAEA enforcement competence.

Which was why Bill Clinton was such a fool for ignoring good advice and handing off enforcement of the North Korean weapons program to the IAEA.

exGOPer · May 12, 2018

NoodleStrudle · May 12, 2018

Hardly anyone's payroll taxes are reduced, please show evidence of your claim because I have not heard of such. In addition, I am following wage economic indicators very closely and I have not seen any across the board wage increases since the Trump inauguration. Please point to solid evidence if you believe to disagree. If that was the case the dollar would be a lot stronger and Fed would have had to hike again already while in effect they are still in the wait. Listen, America has a Republican president, a Republican Senate and a Republican House yet nothing is done about the cost of health care, in effect it is currently worse than it ever was under Obama. That is a fact. So, I am asking again, it appears to me that the situation of the average American is in fact worse now than it was in Nov 2016. And we should not be surprised about that when over a trillion dollar is given to a military and its contractors and a weapon's lobby and manufacturers from our taxes in order to put its nose into conflicts that do not concern ourselves in the slightest.

My question was not how Americans feel, knowing full well that Americans think and feel with their heart, aka emotions and that emotions can be very easily manipulated. My question asked for factual backup of the claim you made that Americans are broadly better off today than they were before Trump. I don't see it from my daily economic analysis and studies of the American economy and its people.

DTB2 said:
No problem there Strudel.

The average Joe has kept his job or gotten a job, received a bonus possibly, wages are rising, his payroll taxes will be reduced. Joe's IRA or 401K looks pretty damn good too.

Healthcare premiums were setup to skyrocket, implode and then the cries for single payer would become louder. That was what Obamacare was about.

Schools are not more unsafe and will be safer going forward as policies go in place of Promise Plan nonsense. Add in the expansion of school choice and that will aid safety and education.

If you've seen the polls, Americans think the country is on the right track.
More...

bullmarket79 · May 12, 2018

DTB2 said:
Nice recap, but an off the books deal doesn't hold much water. Why didn't it go through the process to become a treaty?

Umm, no support for the deal maybe?
More...

Right and whatever Deal the Donald cooks up will have to be ratified by the senate or its all just smoke and mirrors. I'm sure the dems will be undoing his legacy from day one if they take control. It's all tit for tat, need term limits. It's day 476 of America held hostage by the orange haired messiah.