Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Mr. Zarif doesn't grasp what the U.S. government is. He says:
|
US education including his PhD in International Law & Policy. I'd wager he's got a pretty good understanding of what the US Government is.
Buck, he even went to prep school!
Quote:
The article states also that "Zarif also noted that many previous international agreements the U.S. has been a party to have been 'mere executive agreements,' and not full treaties that received Senate ratification."
If the Senate doesn't ratify a treaty, it can stand, so long as they don't later object, as an international "agreement." But not as indisputable "law." The first notable international "executive agreement" that was later made law, was Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. Even though he made the agreement with France without first getting senate ratification, the Senate afterward did ratify it. If it had officially decided not to ratify it, to strike it down, the deal would have been nullified. Nor do those type of agreements being made somehow rewrite the Constitution thereby nullifying Congresses role in ratifying treaties.
|
The "treaty" was ratified by the Senate long ago when we adopted the NPT. Any action against Iran today under the guise of UN Security Council Resolution isn't a new "treaty" and doesn't require Senate ratification.
Quote:
|
And, by the way, are we supposed to think that if the Iranian theocrats decide they don't like some treaty their country had signed on to that they wouldn't junk it?
|
A strong resolution makes it the responsibility of the P5+1 to enforce the resolution. Sure, they can try and skirt the law, they've tried before, but this would add significant insurances not present before.