Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,554
Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 at 09:36:54 am EDT (Viewed 542 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 at 08:56:08 am EDT (Viewed 523 times)

Previous Post


      Similar to what I have said in other posts in this thread, it is important to consider that someone who disagrees with you has valid reasons for their belief. I do understand your concerns. You think the deal was working to prevent Iran from further developing nuclear weapons. You think without the deal, Iran is free to get a nuclear bomb quicker. It's a valid concern. But the other side to the argument is more than simply "Trump makes up a bunch of lies". There are concerns, equally valid to yours, that Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons in sites kept off-limits by confidential side agreements. There are concerns that Iran's restored economy is funneling billions into state sponsored terrorism, and that the deal should have addressed that. There are concerns that the deal which was in place was simply a 10 year waiting game which we can't afford.

    It was really a 15 year waiting game, and we can afford it because that is precisely the time needed for Iran to change its ways as its Iranian Revolution hardliners die off as they are all in their late 70s and 80s now.



        It's your opinion that executive agreements should not be trusted. They can be trusted insofar as presidents abide by them. The more the U.S. breaks them, the less they can be trusted. The more the U.S. abides by them, the more they can be trusted.
      That's what treaties are for. An executive agreement is not a treaty. An executive agreement should not be kept in place if the current executive thinks it is harmful to US interests. The US has treaties to do what you're looking for. The US president is not given the power to enter into binding agreements for a reason.

    It's all besides the point. Obama would have made it a treaty if he could have, but it was never going to pass a Republican Congress.

Sorry if this seems like I am picking on you or choosing sides. But you didn't answer the question. For me the answer is....

NO...president shouldn't have this power.

Power to do what? The president has the power to start the treaty process but passing a treaty is only a bit easier than passing a Constitutional Amendment.

It is one reason that various trade agreements and other things are done using other means. One could make the case that the president should not have that power but Congress could also be said to have the power to stop it just as easily.

They do not. Congress, honestly, does a pretty crappy job of reigning in presidential power. Particularly when their own guy is in power. But if they did not like it, they could do something about it.

All that said, the president, from the get go, has been the face of the government as a whole and is supposed to make these sorts of agreements.

It was also found, upon quick review, that the Supreme Court indicated that these agreements, when validly made, have the same legal status as treaties and do not need Senate approval. (United States vs Pink, 1942)

That said, they would have the danger of the next guy just ending an agreement but classically that has rarely been done because it hurts the chance of future agreements.

I imagine that this is an attractive measure because treaties can take a long time to work out and start bringing local politics into play. An executive agreement involves fewer bodies involved. And it would be possible for Congress to get involved and potentially stop the action if enough members were against it. At least in theory,.

Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 59.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software