A Contrived Controversy and an Emboldened Iran

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Weekly Standard:

Finally, a debate about Iran. Last week, 47 Republican senators released a public letter addressed to the leaders of the Iranian regime. The letter made what might have seemed a self-evident point: If the Obama administration reaches a deal with Iran, Congress will not be bound by parts of the deal to which it has not assented.

 

Then, hysteria.

 

“The letter to Iranian leaders from 47 Republican senators could well destroy critical bipartisanship in U.S. foreign policy for years to come and treacherously undermine the bargaining power of the person constitutionally authorized to conduct American affairs abroad—the President of the United States,” wrote Les Gelb, president emeritus and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “On top of what House speaker John Boehner did by unilaterally inviting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress, this letter seriously points to one terrible conclusion: a formidable number of congressional Republicans hate President Obama more than they love America.”

 

The New York Daily News labeled “traitors” the letter’s signatories and its author, Senator Tom Cotton (combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bronze Star). Max Fisher at Vox.com called the letter “unprecedented” and claimed Republicans were bringing their legislative obstructionism to “the previously sacrosanct realm of foreign policy.” John Kerry bellowed that the “letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of American foreign policy.” Hillary Clinton claimed that if the senators’ objective wasn’t to undermine the president, it was to help the mullahs in Iran. President Obama accused senators of forming a “coalition” with Iran’s hardliners. NBC News called the letter “stunning” and declared that it signaled an end to the days when politics stopped at the water’s edge.

 

We’ll resist the temptation to attach labels to those making these claims or offer judgments on their love of country. Instead, some perspective:

 

* In 1979, Senator Robert Byrd traveled to the Soviet Union during the SALT II arms talks to “personally explain the requirements of our Constitution” to Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev. Byrd later wrote: “In Leningrad, I explained that I had come to the Soviet Union neither to praise nor condemn the treaty but to create a better understanding of the treaty in the Senate and to explain to the Soviets the Senate’s constitutional role in treatymaking.”

 

* In the early 1980s, Senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached leaders of the Soviet Union with a proposal: I’ll help you with Ronald Reagan’s defense build up if you help me defeat him in the 1984 presidential election. Former senator John Tunney conveyed the offer on Kennedy’s behalf.

 

* In April 1985, as the Reagan administration sought to limit Soviet influence in Central America, Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua, met with Communist strongman Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of supporting “terrorism” against the government there. “Senator Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.” Kerry’s trip followed a letter from a group of House Democrats led by majority leader Jim Wright to Nicaraguan strongman Daniel Ortega. The “Dear Comandante” letter declared: “We regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua. We want to commend you and your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”

 

* In 1990, former President Jimmy Carter secretly wrote to the leaders of the U.N. Security Council nations urging them to oppose a resolution offered by his own country. The existence of the letter was revealed when one of its recipients shared a copy with the White House. Presi-dent George H. W. Bush was “furious” at the “deliberate attempt to undermine” his foreign policy, according to his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.

 

* In 2002, in the heat of the congressional debate over the authorization of the Iraq war, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, David Bonior, traveled to Baghdad with two fellow Democrats to oppose the imminent invasion. Democratic congressman Jim McDermott appeared on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad to denounce President George W. Bush and propagandize for Saddam Hussein. Shakir al Khafaji, a well-known fixer for the Iraqi regime and a longtime supporter of Bonior, arranged the visit. The Democrats vigorously denied that they had accepted Iraqi regime funding for the trip. Documents uncovered in postwar Iraq demonstrated that their claim was untrue.

 

* In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops. Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.

 

Politics long ago stopped at the water’s edge. Those who pretend otherwise are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Of course, the past behavior of Democrats doesn’t justify the Republican letter on Iran.

 

The letter needs no justification.

________

 

Outrage diplomacy.

 

[Valin]

The UN angle updated

Scott Johnson

March 13, 2015

 

Reuters has broken an important story on the conniving to convert President Obamas deal in process with Iran from an executive agreement into some compulsory form of international law. Reuters reports:

 

(Snip)

 

UPDATE: I have sought the advice of my friend Michael Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. Professor Paulsen is a prominent scholar of constitutional law. He has responded to my inquiry this morning as follows:

 

 

 

NOTHING in international law can alter U.S. law, except to the extent it is made part of U.S. law, by virtue of being lawfully adopted as a treaty or U.S. statute. The president may make executive agreement deals with foreign nations, and these may have some status as international law, but they only possess the U.S. law status of a presidential deal they are not part of the binding Law of the Land for the USA.

 

Nothing in international law not made part of U.S. domestic law can prevail over US federal law. An international law determination by whatever body cannot trump the U.S. Constitution, a U.S. statute, or a U.S. treaty.

 

I have a big, fat long law review article on the topic of the status of international law as U.S. domestic law: The Constitutional Power to Interpret International Law, 118 Yale L.J. 1762 (2009). Its core thesis is that, for the USA, the Constitution is supreme over international law US domestic law (which is what US officials are sworn to support) ALWAYS prevails over inconsistent international law.

(Snip)