Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
|
Mr. Zarif doesn't grasp what the U.S. government is. He says:
"governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."
He doesn't seem to recognize that the President alone is not U.S. government. That Congress is a major part of that government, and is a responsible party in performing international obligations.
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.
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?
Threaded Mode