Alright, would you enlighten us where ANYTHING is already getting better for the average Joe in South Carolina or Alabama or Iowa or North Dakota? Because I ain't quite seein' it...quite to the contrary. Health insurance premiums are exploding...way higher than under the previous administration, income taxes are hardly a cent lower for the average employee. No increase in blue collar jobs... a potential increase does not really move any needle. If anything, schools have become ever unsafer for our kids. I am not quite sure how the average American can join into your cheers.
Trump to get Nobel for Iran Deal
- Thread starter bone
- Start date
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.
Last edited:
Here’s a nice primer on treaties from the US Senate website, it’s a short easy just the facts read:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
Obama did what he did using the power of the pen because he’s a rather nihilistic man (much more so than Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter IMO) who wanted to burnish his legacy beyond the ACA and killing Bin Laden.
Again, if SEVEN regional stakeholders (Iranian neighbors in fact) uterally despise your proposal and you can’t get the Senate to go along - it was not an enduring idea.
Formal Treaties carry international gravitas, the power of Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, and the innate authority of domestic political consensus.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
Obama did what he did using the power of the pen because he’s a rather nihilistic man (much more so than Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter IMO) who wanted to burnish his legacy beyond the ACA and killing Bin Laden.
Again, if SEVEN regional stakeholders (Iranian neighbors in fact) uterally despise your proposal and you can’t get the Senate to go along - it was not an enduring idea.
Formal Treaties carry international gravitas, the power of Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, and the innate authority of domestic political consensus.
Last edited:
Thank for confirming that you know how to google.
You conveniently overlook the point I outlined yesterday- which is that aside from unsettled constitutonal issues- a treaty is an indication to other countries that this country has put its full faith and assurances forth asserting that it recognizes rights and obligations under the agreement and that while you may legally withdraw- you do it knowing that your honor and credibility as a nation has gone into the shiiter because international law depends on knowing who is honorable who is a shit bum. Consequently if you are a nation thinking that the United States is deeply bound by a "deal" that was not approved at the same level as a treaty (because there was not enough support) then you are on notice that it was implemented upon the actions of one president and we change presidents fairly regularly- so dont whine to us about the U.S. backing out of a treaty. There is no treaty.
Not to distract from your need to dump all that you learned from google, but let's look at a current example. Reportedly, one of the biggest stumbling blocks in dealing with Kim is that he- allegedly- fears that the U.S will still go forward and do a regime change even if he gets rid of or tones down the nukes, or that a future president will just say "well that is just something you and Trump agreed to." And indeed he needs to worry about that. He would be well advised to demand a full treaty settlement with assurances in the treaty and with the inherent senate sign-on to force the country to make a full commitment before the international community. Now the agreement is at a higher level- although each side knows that the other can alway be a shit and unilaterally cancel.
So the fact that there are areas where treaties and "deals" are similar does not mean there are no differences. If you have major global issues being addressed through "deals" rather than treaties it means that some of the negotiators represent countries that are not fully on board. Kim would be fully within in his rights to require a full treaty sign-on for any settlement versus some executive action crapola. You may not see the difference, but he would, and he is not all that bright. Of course the treaty would have assurances and requirements and benefits for Americans, South Koreans, and Japanese interests as well. ie. the parts Obama would leave out.
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.
Well, Obama’s oratory was unmatched. If your only qualification for ranking Presidential greatness is oratory then he’s the GOAT.
It’s taken me about 18 months - but I’ve recently concluded that if I can separate Trump’s asshole pyrotechnical communications skills from the policies he’s implemented it is useful to help me understand.
Trump has actually accomplished quite a bit on the policy front. And he has focused on policies that directly affect working class Rust Belt voters and the trades - very smart. And buried in this all is that Trump has gained several percentage points in popularity amongst blacks as compared to McCain and Romney. That might not seem like much, but it is fucking game over if on a national basis Republicans could get 12 percent of the black vote.
Trump has actually accomplished quite a bit on the policy front. And he has focused on policies that directly affect working class Rust Belt voters and the trades - very smart. And buried in this all is that Trump has gained several percentage points in popularity amongst blacks as compared to McCain and Romney. That might not seem like much, but it is fucking game over if on a national basis Republicans could get 12 percent of the black vote.
Many here seem to believe that The Nuclear Accord with Iran was just something dreamed up by Obama who sent Kerry to implement it. The United States took the initiative in negotiating among the parties, but the Accord was by no means a unilateral accord between the Obama administration and Iran. Breaking from the accord will have the same damaging effect on the Reputation of the United States as would the United States failing to follow through on the provisions of a Treaty it had unilaterally negotiated with Senate Approval.
A dismissive attitude toward our European allies may reveal an ignorance of world affairs and a overly provincial viewpoint. Trump's 'us against the World' attitude may please you; it won't, however, be beneficial to our Country in the long run.
from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Iran nuclear deal: Key details
In 2015, Iran agreed a long-term deal on its nuclear programme with the P5+1 group of world powers - the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany.
It came after years of tension over Iran's alleged efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran insisted that its nuclear programme was entirely peaceful, but the international community did not believe that.
Under the accord, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
Here are the commitments set out in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Uranium enrichment
Enriched uranium is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons.
Iran had two facilities - Natanz and Fordo - where uranium hexafluoride gas was fed into centrifuges to separate out the most fissile isotope, U-235.
Low-enriched uranium, which has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. "Weapons-grade" uranium is 90% enriched.
In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the JCPOA, it was limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz until 2026 - 15 years after the deal's "implementation day" in January 2016.
Iran's uranium stockpile was reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs), a figure that must not be exceeded until 2031. It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.
By January 2016, Iran had drastically reduced the number of centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo, and shipped tonnes of low-enriched uranium to Russia.
In addition, research and development must take place only at Natanz and be limited until 2024.
No enrichment will be permitted at Fordo until 2031, and the underground facility will be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology centre. The 1,044 centrifuges at the site will produce radioisotopes for use in medicine, agriculture, industry and science.
Plutonium pathway
Iran had been building a heavy-water nuclear facility near the town of Arak. Spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.
World powers had originally wanted Arak dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor.
Under the JCPOA, Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor exists.
Iran will not be permitted to build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water until 2031.
Covert activity
At the time of the agreement, then-US President Barack Obama's administration expressed confidence that the JCPOA would prevent Iran from building a nuclear programme in secret. Iran, it said, had committed to "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection".
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites and also verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location to build a bomb.
Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which allows inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.
Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request. If it refuses, an eight-member Joint Commission - including Iran - will rule on the issue. It can decide on punitive steps, including the reimposition of sanctions. A majority vote by the commission suffices.
'Break-out time'
Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the Obama administration.
US experts estimated then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb, it would take two to three months until it had enough 90%-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called "break-out time".
The Obama administration said the JCPOA would remove the key elements Iran would need to create a bomb and increase its break-out time to one year or more.
Iran also agreed not to engage in activities, including research and development, which could contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb.
In December 2015, the IAEA's board of governors voted to end its decade-long investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme.
The agency's director-general, Yukiya Amano, said the report concluded that until 2003 Iran had conducted "a co-ordinated effort" on "a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". Iran continued with some activities until 2009, but after that there were "no credible indications" of weapons development, he added.
Lifting sanctions
Sanctions previously imposed by the UN, US and EU in an attempt to force Iran to halt uranium enrichment crippled its economy, costing the country more than $160bn (£118bn) in oil revenue from 2012 to 2016 alone.
Under the deal, Iran gained access to more than $100bn in assets frozen overseas, and was able to resume selling oil on international markets and using the global financial system for trade.
Should Iran violate any aspect of the deal, the UN sanctions will automatically "snap back" into place for 10 years, with the possibility of a five-year extension.
If the Joint Commission cannot resolve a dispute, it will be referred to the UN Security Council.
Iran also agreed to the continuation of the UN arms embargo on the country for up to five years, although it could end earlier if the IAEA is satisfied that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will also remain in place for up to eight years.
In 2015, Iran agreed a long-term deal on its nuclear programme with the P5+1 group of world powers - the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany.
It came after years of tension over Iran's alleged efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran insisted that its nuclear programme was entirely peaceful, but the international community did not believe that.
Under the accord, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
Here are the commitments set out in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Uranium enrichment
Enriched uranium is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons.
Iran had two facilities - Natanz and Fordo - where uranium hexafluoride gas was fed into centrifuges to separate out the most fissile isotope, U-235.
Low-enriched uranium, which has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. "Weapons-grade" uranium is 90% enriched.
In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the JCPOA, it was limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz until 2026 - 15 years after the deal's "implementation day" in January 2016.
Iran's uranium stockpile was reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs), a figure that must not be exceeded until 2031. It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.
By January 2016, Iran had drastically reduced the number of centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo, and shipped tonnes of low-enriched uranium to Russia.
In addition, research and development must take place only at Natanz and be limited until 2024.
No enrichment will be permitted at Fordo until 2031, and the underground facility will be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology centre. The 1,044 centrifuges at the site will produce radioisotopes for use in medicine, agriculture, industry and science.
Plutonium pathway
Iran had been building a heavy-water nuclear facility near the town of Arak. Spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.
World powers had originally wanted Arak dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor.
Under the JCPOA, Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor exists.
Iran will not be permitted to build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water until 2031.
Covert activity
At the time of the agreement, then-US President Barack Obama's administration expressed confidence that the JCPOA would prevent Iran from building a nuclear programme in secret. Iran, it said, had committed to "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection".
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites and also verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location to build a bomb.
Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which allows inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.
Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request. If it refuses, an eight-member Joint Commission - including Iran - will rule on the issue. It can decide on punitive steps, including the reimposition of sanctions. A majority vote by the commission suffices.
'Break-out time'
Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the Obama administration.
US experts estimated then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb, it would take two to three months until it had enough 90%-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called "break-out time".
The Obama administration said the JCPOA would remove the key elements Iran would need to create a bomb and increase its break-out time to one year or more.
Iran also agreed not to engage in activities, including research and development, which could contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb.
In December 2015, the IAEA's board of governors voted to end its decade-long investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme.
The agency's director-general, Yukiya Amano, said the report concluded that until 2003 Iran had conducted "a co-ordinated effort" on "a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". Iran continued with some activities until 2009, but after that there were "no credible indications" of weapons development, he added.
Lifting sanctions
Sanctions previously imposed by the UN, US and EU in an attempt to force Iran to halt uranium enrichment crippled its economy, costing the country more than $160bn (£118bn) in oil revenue from 2012 to 2016 alone.
Under the deal, Iran gained access to more than $100bn in assets frozen overseas, and was able to resume selling oil on international markets and using the global financial system for trade.
Should Iran violate any aspect of the deal, the UN sanctions will automatically "snap back" into place for 10 years, with the possibility of a five-year extension.
If the Joint Commission cannot resolve a dispute, it will be referred to the UN Security Council.
Iran also agreed to the continuation of the UN arms embargo on the country for up to five years, although it could end earlier if the IAEA is satisfied that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will also remain in place for up to eight years.
Last edited: