Liberty's Advocate Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

An article posted today at "LAST RESISTANCE" written by Michael Minkoff attempts to answer that question. He writes:

"Some Liberal bloggers and twitts are calling a 47-member Congressional letter to Iran an act of treason. Some Congress members, led by freshman Tom Cotton (R-AR), informed Iran that any deal reached without Congressional approval would not necessarily be honored in the long-term.

First, let’s talk about the letter itself. There are a few things that need to be addressed about it. For one, does Congress, or its members, have the right to interface with foreign parties?

Technically, yes, though they rarely do. And the push/pull between Congress and the White House on foreign policy is apparently not a defect of the Constitution, but a feature of its famous “checks and balances.” There is a long history of Congressional roadblocks to the Executive branch’s foreign aims:

“Generally speaking, Congress does not try to upstage the president on major international issues but likes to keep an oar in the water,” says Donald R. Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.

But other experts point to a number of examples in which Congress has openly defied presidents, such as refusing to approve the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and 1920, the overwhelming defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999, and the ongoing opposition to approving the Convention on the Law of the Sea despite support by successive U.S. presidents.

So, this is not exactly a new situation. I would say the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and the abortion of the League of Nations were part of a far more significant foreign policy scuffle.

So, Congress has the right to talk to foreign powers. But what about the content of Congress’s letter? Was it really so inflammatory? Not really. One thing you will rarely see in any of the opinion pieces calling out Congress as “literally” treasonous is any of the text of the actual letter. At all. Go ahead. Google “Congress letter to Iran” and see what comes up. I finally found the text of the apparently “open” letter in the Wall Street Journal after some searching. Here’s that link. Go read the letter. {I published it below, as published in the Wall Street Journal}

Notice anything? It’s polite. It’s not inflammatory. And it is really not a warning. It is informative. Everything that is said is absolutely true. In some ways, the letter might actually un-sabotage the negotiations and save us from war with Iran. Because the fact is that if Iran gets a deal from the Obama administration that they’re happy with, and then Congress were to refuse to ratify it without any warning (which is their Constitutional right), that might be a far worse outcome for US-Iranian relations.

At the end of the day, all this talk of treason is overblown rhetoric based on a strawman. Congress did not sabotage anything. They told Iran where Congress stands. Which is actually important. As much as Obama would like to operate independently of Congress, their approval of this deal is technically more important than his. Like Congress said in their letter: . . . The president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

That is true. Which means that, in real, practical terms, Iran needs to consider Congress’s opinion as more important than the President’s.

Is that sabotage? No. It’s transparency. Iran, and the White House, might not appreciate it in the short term. But, in the long term, it was a good decision. At the very least, it wasn’t treason. Give me a break."

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK

There, now! Isn't that better than the direct interference of Nancy Pelosi, who traveled abroad to meet directly with Syria's Assad, undermining Bush '43's pressures in 2007 to isolate him as a "Rogue Nation" -- a move publicly applauded quite loudly at the time by Hillary Clinton?

Sons of Liberty Loc: look behind you!

If it's treason they're looking for, they need not look beyond the WH.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

And, there is Senator Ted Kennedy's letter to General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov asking the Soviet Union to intervene in Reagan's nuclear deterrent program.

I salute these 47 Senators. Their letter is a breath of fresh air in a totally polluted world. One of my senators signed.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I actually wish they'd been harsher. Talks with Iran. Why? How about a couple hundred bunker busters to say hello.

hnealc

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :)

grumbledog

Are you really that stupid or just drinking to much of GOPTP, Hannity, Rush and Mark cool-aid.

why not point out what you with your little brain think the President has done that is treason

grumbledog

You need to wake up from these fantasy dreams you are having

roy

Bunker busters want work,if they would they have already been used,maybe youll get what you want in 2 years,millions of our young men dead,thats what republicans want,if republicans was trying to do this deal you would say one dam word,and what will they do if they takeover this country in2016,probably do the same thing they all talk, i think this letter they sent to iran done them in for 2016 anyway,they just seem shoot themselves in the foot

grumbledog

well I guess the 3 stooges have been replaced with the 47 stooges

Well maybe you should go back and look at these 2 section again nothing prevent the President from entering into a agreement and there is absolutely nothing congress can do about it.

If 47 Democratic senator had done anything like this to GWB, you guys would be calling for them to be hang from the capital building. The President is in charge of Foreign policy not the Senate or the House of Representatives. I know that because you did good in 2014 you guys now think you run the government.
FYI since the 2014 election the scoreboard reads:
President Obama 4
GOPTP 0
I don't think that President Clinton will as you put it "will revoke the agreement with a single stroke of the Pen.

hnealc

You really need "Dragon Naturally Speaking" BADLY!! You certainly don't actually SPEAK like that.
Maybe that's why you are a LIB as you read the same way, leaving out the real important facts?

grumbledog

i don't think it is treason but I hope they keep it up because the victory in 2016 will be even sweeter

son of witless

Democrats openly tried to make America lose the Iraq War. The 47 Republican Patriots are trying to make sure Obama does not allow Iran to get the bomb.

Obama is an idiot. Everything from Obamacare to illegal immigration is based on lies and broken promises. Why would anyone trust him to deal with Iran? Why indeed?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Sons of Liberty Loc: look behind you!

I just love "keyboard cowboys." You don't even know me, but you go as far as to call me stupid and say I have a little brain.
Tell me what part of the constitution "your king" has upheld.

hnealc

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: