Advice and Consent of the Senate
Continuing my efforts to demonstrate that a little knowledge of the law is a dangerous thing (and adding a superfluous Wald to the name of the AngryBear competent to discuss this) I wonder how and why Senators decided that the President must seek their advice and consent before performing any foreign policy (including for all I know officially expressing the wish that foreign heads of state have a happy birthday).
The phrase appears twice in The Constitution in Article II Section 2 describing the athority of the President.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
In the actual relevant text, advice and consent is required to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. There is nothing about involving the Senate in negotiations or even informing the senate about the progress of negotiations. There is no requirement that the US representative at the UN (usually called the ambassador to the UN but not so called by the UN) seek the advice and consent of the Senate before voting in the Security Council.
It is clear that under the constitution, relevant treaties (such as the convention establishing the United Nation) and current law, secretary of State Kerry does not need the advice and consent of the Senate to negotiate with foreign minister Zarif.
The possibly Logan act violating 47 non traitors didn’t even claim that negotiating without their participation is improper in their outrageous letter.
The argument appears to be “listen to me me meee” because I am bored with negotiating with even more insane representatives in the House to keep the government open.
I guess I am irritated by those who seek Ballance by insisting that the Obama administration provoked the 47 Senators (by doing what every administration in the past 75 years has done).
ODS.
It’s the public nature of the letter that is so destructive. The message is factual enough.
You wrote: “In the actual relevant text, advice and consent is required to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. There is nothing about involving the Senate in negotiations or even informing the senate about the progress of negotiations. There is no requirement that the US representative at the UN (usually called the ambassador to the UN but not so called by the UN) seek the advice and consent of the Senate before voting in the Security Council. ”
The 47 Senators should not have addressed the letter to Iran. Most of us should be able to agree with that.
But the US Congress could refuse to ratify a treaty negotiated between the Executive branch and Iran. They could refuse to fund any spending for the implementation of an agreement made between the President and Iran. And if a Republican ascended to the Presidency in the next election, that President could quickly renounce any previous agreement which had not gotten Congressional consent.
We live in extraordinary times, but not as extraordinary as some of us believe.
President John Adams signed the Alien & Sedition Acts in July 1798 and the Logan Act in January 1799.
The Sedition Act was unpopular at the time and today would be found to violate the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. See section two at the bottom of this page (Amazing!):
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719
And the Logan Act is never enforced, probably because of 1st Amendment constitutional problems. Applying this law to elected US Senators would shock most Americans.
See the top of this page:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=736
So by 1798 the federal government felt itself under attack and was attempting to restrain the people.
Were these laws the precursor which caused Chief Justice Marshall to rule in 1803 that the Supreme Court could decide constitutional issues? (Marbury vs Madison)
The claims of fact in the letter are accurate. They are also irrelevant. The Iranians know perfectly well that there won-t be a treaty. The issues which mattter to them are UN Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1929. The Islamic Republic of Iran endured US sanctions for almost its entire history. They are now suffering because of worldwide sanctions. Basically (unless the US uses military force) the US acting alone can-t hurt them all that much.
A future President, 100 future Senators and 435 future Representatives can’t over rule a veto in the Security council.
If there is a resolution repealing them and it is not vetoed by the USA then Iran will have something it wants which is less vulnerable to US politics than a ratified treaty with the US.
Congress can ban the expenditure of any US money on US interactions with the security council. Congress can not force ambassador Rice to veto a resulution — voting no costs no less than voting yes and if she can’t go to work at all the US abstains.
The letter notes facts (which are well known to the Iranian cabinet) which are irrelevant to Irans problems and goals.
What Iran knows:
There is a black man in the White House.
It was not so long ago that lynch mobs in the states many of those 47 come from were hanging black men.
What Iranians cannot understand: US war crimes, US funding Israeli war crimes, Israeli nukes are okay to the US, black kids are shot on the streets of the US……..
US pushing Russia around!
You wrote “The Islamic Republic of Iran endured US sanctions for almost its entire history.” Which began when they seized an entire embassy and most of its staff. At one time ambassadors were killed delivering unwanted messages. The civilized world gave that up because it made negotiations more difficult. Seizing an embassy and its staff and holding them as hostages for over a year accomplished something similar.
I was hopeful that a treaty could be had because the Europeans were involved in the negotiations. They are still involved. Google “Iran nuclear negotiations European” and you will get pages of responses.
On the other hand if the Iranians thought they could travel the North Korean path to first one and then more nuclear warheads, then the whole process was doomed. During those talks with the North Korean, the US negotiators reminded me of the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who was desperate to avoid war with Germany. His desperation led to meaningless agreements which were promptly violated.
If the Europeans, the Chinese, and the Russians are willing to accept Iran as a nuclear power then they will also have to accept two or three other oil rich middle eastern countries with nuclear weapons. At some point the Non-Proliferation Treaty will lose all relevance. And debates in the UN won’t be enough to resurrect it.
If the UN insists on a vote repealing Resolutions 1737 and 1929, we should walk out. That would send a much needed message to the rest of the world. They are responsible for their actions and they should not depend on us to be the fall guys.
The Republican desire to stop Iran’s going nuclear is a positive. But as usual they are so over the top that it is difficult to agree with them. I am much more worried about their penchant for seeing everything as leading to war. They seem to believe that if someone is not your friend then they must be your enemy.
MMMMM? Why do the 47 love Israel more than America?
It is not that they love Israel more than America, but that they HATE Obama.
JimH
i think you should seriously contemplate the “they hate Obama” motive you are being offered.
you should also think about WHY the Iranians “captured” out embassy… I”m not saying they were the poor underdog good guys, but then neither were we.
what the congress is doing is sandbagging the President for political… stupid political… reasons. which is why they are not voting on the new attorney general appointment. pure dumb politics. I don’t need to read the leftist press (there is one, just not the mainstream press) to see that the Republicans are insane. (not that the Dems arent into it up to their greedy little elbows.)