[From article]
The Framers of our constitution probably would have regarded the nuclear deal with Iran as a “treaty,” subject to a two thirds ratification by the Senate. At the very least they would have required Congress to approve the agreement by a majority vote. It is unlikely that it would have allowed the President alone to make so important and enduring an international agreement.
If President Obama doesn't treat the Iran agreement with more respect, all his arguments today are beside the point. The agreement won't have the force of law.
[. . .]
Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus Harvard Law School
Some early versions of the Constitution allocated treaty-making powers solely to the Senate, but Alexander Hamilton argued that “joint possession of the power in question, by the President and Senate, would afford greater prospect of security, than the separate possession of that by either of them.” He thought it unwise to give a single person all the power to shape the country’s relationship to the rest of the world.
[. . .]
In the two and a quarter centuries since the ratification of the Constitution, the power of the executive has expanded considerably, but the Framers would be shocked by the current situation in which the president alone gets to make an important and enduring international agreement that can be overridden only by two thirds plus one of both the senate and the house. At the very least, this important and enduring deal should have required a majority vote of Congress. Although the Constitution does not provide for such a hybrid agreement, in practice there have been numerous “executive-congressional” agreements that have been negotiated by the president and agreed to by a majority vote of Congress. Basic principles of democracy as well as our constitutional system of checks and balances would seem to require more than a presidential decision supported by one third of both the house and senate.
While a majority of the House and the Senate voted for this exceptional set of rules for approving the Iran agreement, it was only to assure themselves that they would have any say at all in the matter. President Obama's position was that he could make the "executive" agreement without Congressional approval.
[. . .]
Although the Gibbons [v Ogden] case dealt with the relationship between the federal government and the States, its language suggests that the president alone may not have the power to avoid congressional oversight by simply declaring an important deal with foreign powers to be an executive agreement rather than a treaty.
With regard to the deal with Iran, the stakes are so high, and the deal so central to the continuing security of the free world, that it should — as a matter of democratic governance — require more than a presidential agreement and one third plus one of both houses of Congress. This is especially true where there is no clear consensus in favor of the deal among the American people. Though we do not govern by polls, it seems fairly clear that a majority of Americans now oppose the deal.
[. . .]
In the end, the court of public opinion decides important policy decisions that may affect us all. And it is difficult to imagine a decision with higher stakes than whether to accept or reject this deal.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/05/alan-dershowitz-iran-deal-treaty-column/31160415/
Mr. Obama, your Iran deal will fall apart: Alan Dershowitz
Alan M. Dershowitz
1:46 p.m. EDT August 5, 2015
* * *
[From article]
Fears of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon have haunted supporters of Israel and advocates of Middle East peace for over a decade, stoked by frequent public reminders by back-to-back regimes of the Islamic Republic that their goal is the annihilation of the Jewish State. “This book took me less than two weeks to write and ten years to research, so I’ve been thinking about and writing about this potentially for ten years,” explained Dershowitz. “I wrote my first long article about this in 2005. I had my ideas and I’ve been following the deal very closely. As soon as the deal was announced, I read it and annotated it, and the pages appear as an appendage to the book.” Dershowitz explains that he has been writing and lecturing about the threat of a nuclear Iran for over a decade. He has discussed the subject directly with President Obama. Fifteen days after Dershowitz decided to write The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes?, it was released on Kindle and the following day was the number one international Kindle best seller.
[. . .]
“I wrote the book, keeping in mind people I’ve known for years, Senator [Chuck] Schumer, Senator [Elizabeth] Warren, Senator [Ed] Markey, Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, various United States senators, Democrats and also some Republicans,” Dershowitz explained. “Clearly I want to influence the outcome of their vote by engaging directly with the senators and congressmen, first with my own writing and ideas. Second, by encouraging their constituents to read it and write to them, call them and urge them to do the right thing.” He added, “This is not merely an academic book for posterity. It was designed to affect real policies in real time.”
[. . .]
“The cynical theory, which seems to be supported by the data, is that once he was out of politics, that is, once he couldn’t run again and once the House and the Senate were firmly in the hands of Republicans, he was going to do what he always wanted to do and he was less than completely candid with those of us whom he told that the military option was on the table and that Iran would never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.” “The other theory is that he genuinely changed his mind when he saw that Iran had an opening for negotiations. And I leave it to the reader to judge which of those theories is true.” Dershowitz says that in his book he proves “conclusively” that Mr. Obama changed his policy. “He took the military option off the table, and that was an extraordinarily naïve and wrong thing to do because that allowed the Iranians to negotiate with us as equals,” said Dershowitz.
[. . .]
Dershowitz reminds his readers, “in American democracy, we the people, the majority rules; and if the majority of Americans oppose the deal it will ultimately be rejected, if not by this administration, then by the next. In the end, the court of public opinion will decide.
[. . .]
Asked if he believes that President Obama is a failed leader, Dershowitz, who supported the president in both elections, replied, “I think on the Iran deal he is a failed leader.” Dershowitz continued, “I think this will be his legacy in terms of international relations and I think it will result in an increase in the nuclear arms race, an end to anti-nuclear proliferation, an increase in the likelihood of war, and a greater gulf between Israel and the United States. All of which he promised would not happen.” “If you judge president Obama by his own standards, he is an abject failure when it comes to international relations. Forget about my standard or yours. By his own standard he is an abject failure when it comes to dealing with Iran.”
http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/
Dershowitz: Obama is an abject failure—by his own standards Exclusive interview with liberal lawyer and lifelong Democrat says Obama was 'checkmated'
* * *
[From article]
Fears of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon have haunted supporters of Israel and advocates of Middle East peace for over a decade, stoked by frequent public reminders by back-to-back regimes of the Islamic Republic that their goal is the annihilation of the Jewish State. “This book took me less than two weeks to write and ten years to research, so I’ve been thinking about and writing about this potentially for ten years,” explained Dershowitz. “I wrote my first long article about this in 2005. I had my ideas and I’ve been following the deal very closely. As soon as the deal was announced, I read it and annotated it, and the pages appear as an appendage to the book.” Dershowitz explains that he has been writing and lecturing about the threat of a nuclear Iran for over a decade. He has discussed the subject directly with President Obama. Fifteen days after Dershowitz decided to write The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes?, it was released on Kindle and the following day was the number one international Kindle best seller.
[. . .]
“I wrote the book, keeping in mind people I’ve known for years, Senator [Chuck] Schumer, Senator [Elizabeth] Warren, Senator [Ed] Markey, Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, various United States senators, Democrats and also some Republicans,” Dershowitz explained. “Clearly I want to influence the outcome of their vote by engaging directly with the senators and congressmen, first with my own writing and ideas. Second, by encouraging their constituents to read it and write to them, call them and urge them to do the right thing.” He added, “This is not merely an academic book for posterity. It was designed to affect real policies in real time.”
[. . .]
“The cynical theory, which seems to be supported by the data, is that once he was out of politics, that is, once he couldn’t run again and once the House and the Senate were firmly in the hands of Republicans, he was going to do what he always wanted to do and he was less than completely candid with those of us whom he told that the military option was on the table and that Iran would never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.” “The other theory is that he genuinely changed his mind when he saw that Iran had an opening for negotiations. And I leave it to the reader to judge which of those theories is true.” Dershowitz says that in his book he proves “conclusively” that Mr. Obama changed his policy. “He took the military option off the table, and that was an extraordinarily naïve and wrong thing to do because that allowed the Iranians to negotiate with us as equals,” said Dershowitz.
[. . .]
Dershowitz reminds his readers, “in American democracy, we the people, the majority rules; and if the majority of Americans oppose the deal it will ultimately be rejected, if not by this administration, then by the next. In the end, the court of public opinion will decide.
[. . .]
Asked if he believes that President Obama is a failed leader, Dershowitz, who supported the president in both elections, replied, “I think on the Iran deal he is a failed leader.” Dershowitz continued, “I think this will be his legacy in terms of international relations and I think it will result in an increase in the nuclear arms race, an end to anti-nuclear proliferation, an increase in the likelihood of war, and a greater gulf between Israel and the United States. All of which he promised would not happen.” “If you judge president Obama by his own standards, he is an abject failure when it comes to international relations. Forget about my standard or yours. By his own standard he is an abject failure when it comes to dealing with Iran.”
http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/
Dershowitz: Obama is an abject failure—by his own standards Exclusive interview with liberal lawyer and lifelong Democrat says Obama was 'checkmated'
By Paul Miller
08/05/15 7:00pm
No comments:
Post a Comment