Iran Understands The Constitution Better Than The GOP

[Gravekeeper]

There are not enough palms to face.

I don't even know what to say any more. For reference, the GOP circumvented the administration to directly address Iran during international talks about its nuclear proliferation:

On March 9, a group of 47 Republican senators warned Iran's leaders that a nuclear deal signed during President Barack Obama’s tenure could be revoked by the next president or modified by a future Congress. “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,” wrote the lawmakers in an open letter to Iran's leaders. All but seven Republican senators— Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Dan Coats, Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, and Rob Portman— signed the letter, organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR, left).

And as Iran points out: This is a violation of both the Constitution and international law. Never mind that the talks in question are not solely between the US and Iran. There are so many fails here I don't know where to start. >.>

[s_stabeler]

Most basically, while it's true that any agreement needs ratifying by the legislature of at least the US ( I don't know about Iran) they can't modify it unilaterally. A ratification vote is a straight take it or leave it vote-n you can't ratify a modified agreement unless it's agreed with the other parties.

Oh, and the Republicans seem to forget that if America walks away from any obligations under a treaty with Iran, Iran is released from any obligation to follow it's side of things.

[Andrew B]

I just read the article. These senators may have just jeopardized a peace treaty. Heads should be rolling, metaphorically.

[mjr]

Gravekeeper has a point, if this is indeed unconstitutional (and it looks as though it may be).

If it's indeed true, then I think it's time to start voting out 47 GOP Senators in 2016...at the least. So whichever ones are up for re-election...say goodbye to your office. Additionally, if true, the Democrats should begin looking into impeachment proceedings immediately. Sounds like it fits the bill for impeachment.

Though I would have to wonder if there are enough Democrats in the Senate to start impeachment. I'm sure House Republicans want to distance themselves a little from their colleagues in the Senate (and likely value their jobs), and so they may go along with Dems in this case.

This is a great platform to run on, for any candidate. You know, the whole "following the Constitution" thing, and not being subversive.

I'm probably not, but I like to my think of myself politically as an "equal opportunity" person. I give all elected (and potentially elected) officials equal opportunity to screw up, and to do right. In this case, if this is indeed unconstitutional (I've had a lot going on, haven't had a chance to keep up with it), then these GOP members messed up--big time! And the need to be GONE.

The Congress is screwed up enough as it is.

[KabeRinnaul]

I haven't looked to see if this has shown up on Fark.com, yet, but I can just imagine the headline if it does: "News: US-Iran treaty endangered by extremist elements. Fark: On the States' side."

This is a great platform to run on, for any candidate. You know, the whole "following the Constitution" thing, and not being subversive.

You'd think that, but they'll probably just start crowing that they defended 'Murica by keeping Obama from making secret deals with his fellow Muslims and signing away our freedoms to Iran. Then they'll win landslide elections because, at this point, "doesn't trust brown people" is a significant factor in the GOP voter base.

[HYHYBT]

"Heads should be rolling, metaphorically."---Timing is everything. This is a new Congress; by the time elections come around again this will be almost 2, 4, or 6 years old and nobody will care... unless something unignorably bad and directly connected results in the meantime.

[Greenday]

From what I understand, this was completely illegal. It violates the Logan Act which prevents unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. What they are doing could be construed as trying to get Iran to change their foreign relations policies which could fall under this law.

[Hyena Dandy]

The Logan Act thing is... Tricky. I doubt it would violate the Logan Act for a few reasons.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

For one, it's not authorized people, it says "Without the authority of the United States." Congressmen can speak with the authority of the united states. In '75 the State Department said that

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.

So the apparent intent is that, say, if I'm a multi-millionaire businessman, then I can't say to a guy "Get the US to concede this, and I'll throw something your way." Rather than if I'm a congressman, I can't set out an open (not private) statement.

Also the Iran letter is clearly not a piece of negotiation. While it's foolhardy, stupid, and ridiculous, and seems openly boastful of the fact that you need 3/5 in the Senate to win a majority vote, it isn't actually negotiating with anyone. It's saying effectively "If we do not ratify an agreement, the agreement will not have been ratified." It's just an open statement saying what the person writing the letter believes to be the US constitutional law. Whether true or not, that's what he thinks it is.

Finally, there's a very good argument that this would be under freedom of speech. Because it's an open letter, not a closed one, and does not propose anything on behalf of the US, or the people sending the letter. It probably falls under free speech, as it's as much a letter written to the people of the US as it is a letter written to the Iranian government.

[Gravekeeper]

Current excuses now that its blowing up in their face:

Its Obama's fault:

“Before the letter, the national conversation was about Netanyahu’s speech and how Obama’s negotiations with Iran are leading to a terrible deal that could ultimately harm U.S. national security. Now, the Obama administration and its Capitol Hill partisans are cynically trying to push the conversation away from policy, and towards a deeply political pie fight over presidential and congressional prerogatives,” said a Senate Republican aide whose boss signed the letter.

It was just a joke! You people have no sense of humour:

Republican aides were taken aback by the response to what what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

As per usual, its everyone else's fault for the way they reacted rather than their fault for doing it. Though for the record the handful of GOP senators that did not sign the letter think it was unproductive and idiotic of their peers. Unfortunately, the other 47 that did sign it refuse to back down from it even despite it blowing up in their face.

[Hyena Dandy]

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

SHOULD they have a sense of humor?

They're trying to get a not-exactly-friendly nation to not create weapons taht could kill thousands. I don't think this is a thing to joke about.

[mjr]

I feel it necessary to make a correction from earlier.

Based on what I've read, it's debatable whether or not any member of Congress can be legally impeached. So impeachment is not an option.

The DOJ filing charges may be, though.

[Hyena Dandy]

As I said in my post, I'm not really sure that there's been an illegal thing occurring. Stupid though.

[Andara Bledin]

And, in related news, Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.

From the New Yorker (note: this is satire for those who miss the byline and the wink)

[Gravekeeper]

Germany is upset....and McCain just Godwin'd them. He Godwin'd Germany. McCain, who signed on to this letter then claimed he didn't know what he was signing but now says he's glad he signed it and blames Obama for it.

The German foreign minister complained that the move, which has been condemned by Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and several Democratic congressional leaders, could jeopardize the Western position in the nuclear talks.

"This is not a trifle," he stressed. "The negotiations are difficult enough, so we didn't actually need further irritations."

McCain launched a broadside against Steinmeier, accusing him of being "in the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy" for not toughening Berlin's stance on Russia's interference in Ukraine.

Haven't you done enough damage to America by introducing it to Palin?

[Greenday]

I try not to blame one party for my country's problems since both main parties are God awful. But it's pretty freaking lopsided. The Republicans time and time again seem to be trying to move us backwards, make the people suffer, and destroy international relations. I just don't get it.