RSS

Congress is Wheelin’ and Dealin’

21 Jul

Deal2Today, The Washington Examiner published an article entitled “Kerry:  U.N. has the right to vote on Iran deal before Congress.”  The article focused on the recent preliminary agreement between Iran and the U.S. on the subject of nuclear weapons for Iran.

Including the headline, the article has 260 words.  The word “deal” appeared five times.  The word “treaty” didn’t appear even once.

Of course, The Washington Examiner article was not a Supreme Court decision.  We can’t assume that the article’s word choices reflect the actual law and relies on legal terms.  Still, it’s odd that the article repeatedly describes this agreement between the nations of Iran and the U.S. as a “deal” but never once called it a “treaty”.

Shouldn’t we expect that an agreement between two nations would be called a “treaty”?

The article reads,

 

“Secretary of State John Kerry deflected bipartisan criticism of the Obama administration’s move to take the Iran nuclear deal to the United Nations before the U.S. Congress has the opportunity to vote on it, saying the U.N. has a right to go first and to suggest otherwise was “presumptuous.”

“Obama had previously signed legislation that would give Congress 60 days to review and vote on the deal struck over Iran’s nuclear program.”

 

When the article talks about “Congress” voting on the “deal” and “legislation” giving “Congress” 60 days to review the “deal,” I assume that they’re using the term “Congress” to mean the “House of Representative”—but not the Senate.

After all, the Senate is empowered and required by the Constitution to give “Advice and Consent” to treaties negotiated by the President.  But there’s no constitutional proviso of which I’m aware that requires or even allows the House of Representatives to participate in deciding whether a treaty between the U.S. and some foreign nation should or should not be “ratified”.

So far as I know, there are only three sections of the Constitution that deal with “treaties”:

 

  1. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: “No State shall enter into any Treaty. . . . “

That means no State of the Union can independently enter into any Treaty with a foreign nation.

 

  1. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2: “The President . . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided that two thirds of the Senators present concur . . . .”

The Senate has constitutional power to ratify Treaties negotiated by the President.  But, there is no constitutional proviso for the Congress (House of Representatives) to ratify or approve treaties. . . . 

 

  1. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: “ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made, under their Authority—“

The word “their” in the previous clause appears to refer to “United States”.  “Their” is plural.  It follows that the term “United States” must also be plural and therefore signifies the “several United States”—implying that the “Authority” to ratify constitutional Treaties lies with the Senators representing the States of the Union (“The United States of America”).

 

•  There’s no proviso in the Constitution for ratification or even approval by the “Congress”.  This omission explains why Obama had previously signed legislation to allow Congress 60 days to review and vote on the Iranian “deal”.  The House of Representatives is not authorized by the Constitution to participate in the ratification of treaties, but it it is “authorized” by statute enacted by the House, Senate and President.

Presumably, if Congress votes against the U.S./Iran nuclear “deal,” it will be rendered void.

But what, exactly, is this “deal”?  If it’s not to be ratified by the Senate but does require validation by the Congress, it is not a constitutional “treaty”.

So what is it?

 

  • More, 17th Amendment (A.D. 1913) declares that:

 

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof for six years; . . . .”

Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were elected by the legislatures of each State of the Union—not the people.  The Senators therefore represented the States’ legislatures rather than the State’s people.  Under the Constitution, the Senators who represented the State legislatures were empowered to “advise and consent” to treaties on behalf of the State legislatures.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 declared,

 

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made, under their Authority—“

The “judicial power” of the Article III courts only applies to “Treaties made” under the “Authority” of the States of the Union.   If the Senators are no longer elected by the legislatures of the States of the Union, does any constitutional ratification process by the Senate (or the House) remain under the “Authority” of the States of the Union?

If not, what is the legal nature of the “deals” we are reaching with foreign countries?

If those “deals” aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of Article III judicial courts, are they only subject to administrative law and administrative courts?

Since the 17th Amendment requires Senators to be elected by and therefore represent the people or perhaps only US citizens rather than the State legislatures, what does this mean for the modern Senators’ “authority” to ratify Treaties?

Has the Senate legitimately ratified any treaty on behalf of the States of the Union since A.D. 1913?  Can the modern Senate legitimately ratify any treaty, except on behalf of the States of the Union?

When the House of Representatives votes on and figuratively ratifies a “deal” today, is that ratification on behalf of States of the Union (“The Unite States of America”) or on behalf of the “United States”?

The article continues:

 

“But since agreeing on the deal with the other world powers, the administration has announced its intention to bring the deal to the United Nations first.

“Thus, by the time Congress votes, the administration will argue that were the body to reject the deal, they’d be blowing up a U.N.-approved agreement.”

 

Implication:  Obama and Kerry don’t expect the Iran nuclear “deal” to pass Congress.  They will therefore try to get the UN to first sanctify the “deal” in order to intimidate the Congress into ratifying.

My thought on this is “Who, under the Constitution, gives a damn as to what the U.N. does or doesn’t do?”

Why should the U.N. have any say or influence over whatever “deals” are ratified by the House of Representatives?

The fact that the U.N. does appear to have a say or influence over U.S. “deals” with foreign countries is more evidence that these “deals” are not constitutional “treaties” but may be some sort of international law under the auspices of the U.N..

 

 “In an interview airing Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Kerry said of the U.N. voting first, “They have a right to do that. Honestly, it’s presumptuous of some people to suspect that France, China, Russia, Germany, Britain ought to do what the Congress tells them to do. They have a right to have a vote.”

Say whut?  Foreign countries have a right to vote on the U.S./Iran “deal”?

I agree that, under the Constitution, Congress shouldn’t have any control over France, China, Russia, Germany and other foreign countries.  I also agree that, under the Constitution, those same foreign countries shouldn’t have any control or influence over Congress.

So, what is Secretary of State Kerry talking about when he claims that foreign countries have a “right” to vote on a “deal” that is presumably between only the U.S. and Iran?   Is this “deal” really a treaty between the U.S. and Iran?  Or is this “deal” between Iran in the U.N.?

I don’t know what this “deal” between U.S. and Iran is.

I do know what it’s not:  It’s not a “treaty” as referenced at Article 2 Section 2 clause 2 and Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

 

•  More, I don’t know what the nature of the upcoming Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is, but I’ll bet that it’s another “deal” rather than a constitutional treaty.  I might be “mis-remembering” (thanks for that term, G.W.B.), but if I recall correctly, the Congress has authorized the President to engage in “Fast Track” negotiations with the TPP.  “Fast Track” (if I recall correctly) allows the House of Representatives to vote on validating the TPP “deal”.

If I’m remembering correctly, all of this suggests that the “deals” with foreign countries that are validated by the House of Representatives rather than the Senate are not part of the “supreme law of the land”.  They are almost certainly the product of administrative law that is not mandatory for the people within the States of the Union.

I wonder how many previous “deals” with foreign countries have been validated by the House of Representatives rather than ratified by the Senate.  I wonder how many of those “deals” have been used as a basis for modifying American law.   How many of those “deals” affect your driver licenses,  “sanctuary cities,” passports, identification documents, Agenda 21 or access to banking services?

I doubt that any of the “deals” validated by Congress (rather than the Senate) have any legal authority except under administrative law.  As I’ve tried to describe elsewhere, administrative law is not mandatory for the people of The United States of America.  (See the category, “Administrative Law”.)

So, what is the legal jurisdiction, power and effect of these “deals”?

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

17 responses to “Congress is Wheelin’ and Dealin’

  1. Dennis Naanes

    July 21, 2015 at 4:19 PM

    Alfred – I am in favor of giving Iran the right to manage there own affairs Dennis

    Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:19:35 +0000 To: dancdldriverth@hotmail.com

     
    • Mark Twang

      July 22, 2015 at 11:03 AM

      @ Alfred – I am in favor of giving Iran the right to manage there own affairs Dennis
      Well, Dennis, it is written that it is more blessed to give than to receive, which means, to me, if you are able to give, the giver still calls the shots & is superior to the receiver. SOooooooo either way, that “RIGHT GIVER” is the Boss !! More accurately said, it’s the PRIVILEGE giver, not, Right giver.

       
  2. palani

    July 21, 2015 at 6:22 PM

    Deal is to Treaty
    as
    Police Action is to War

     
    • Les Moore

      August 5, 2015 at 2:50 PM

      @ Police Action is to War
      I sorta feel these “Swat Teams” are a type of Martial law. I could be specific & give an example & a true situation of why I say this, but it would be quite lengthy. “Swat Teams” show up for trivial reasons when 1, or, 2, or, no more than 3 law enforcement agents are really needed to resolve the situation even IF there is a real situation that calls for it. Believe it or not, somebody can “report” that you have a 22 pistol in your home & the next thing ya know there is a LOUD knock on the door, there are 3 “Peace Officers” laying on the ground in your backyard, with Rifles pointing towards your dwelling, 5 squad Cars in the front, Heavily armed “Peace Officers” everywhere in the front. You do not answer the door. You hear, WE KNOW YOU GOT A GUN IN THERE palaini, but like I say, it’s a long story. Here is a clue. Isaiah 65:22, They shall not build, and another inhabit;. When a Judge & an Attorney want your home,& your possessions, a stroke of the pen gets the job done. REALLY!!

       
  3. Henry

    July 21, 2015 at 9:00 PM

    Since seven nations are party to this agreement – United States, France, Russia, China, Germany, Great Britain and Iran – making it a “treaty” would have taken vastly more diplomacy, political resources, and time.

    It seems the Powers That Be wanted this agreement done quickly, so it got fast-tracked and pushed through as a “deal” at the policy level rather than a formal “treaty”.

     
  4. Joe L'Amarca

    July 22, 2015 at 1:44 AM

    If you read Artcle 3 Section 2 , it makes it clear that when a State asks Congress to draft a treaty the State looses the right to raise an objection at a later date , that language is found in the Canadian migratory bird case of molholand Vs Georgia .
    If you compare the elenth Amendment it is Unconstitutional now compare it with Article 3 Section 2 .
    You should be able to find three conflict in the 11 Th amendment . if you cant see/locate the three conflict then I can help you to locate them .

     
    • Mark Twang

      July 22, 2015 at 11:18 AM

      JOe,
      @ “If you read Artcle 3 Section 2,………………………………………………………………………..”
      jOe, IF YOU READ the POWER CLAUSE IN THE “WAR” AMENDMENTS, & OTHER POWER CLAUSES IN THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, you, OR ANYONE with just a tad bit of SENSE will SEE that, everything written in the 1787/89 Constitution & additional Amendments through the 12th, IS NOW PURVIEWED THROUGH & ENFORCED by The “Appropriate legislation” POWER CLAUSE!!! GET IT?

       
  5. dog-move

    July 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM

    Since the United States and Iran are municipal corporations under the International Monetary Fund and/or World Bank, treaties may not apply in a corporate “action of account” (?). Only Executive Order Deals may apply. This whole deal thing may be some sort of a corporate merger and acquisition deal. As the whole Babylonian system of 11th dollar creation continues to disintegrate, situations similar to the merger and acquisition of Cuba Inc. into the Homeland Inc. will be the norm.
    The whole system is bankrupt, deals are the all we will see going forward, no treaties, as treaties only take place between sovereign nations. Deals take place between corporations, as in renegotiating how to repay the debt. Al, you say “what can’t be paid won’t be paid”. This may be at the bottom of this deal thing—- there are definitely FRN’s at the bottom too. Al, you stated that action of account may be one of the most important articles you have ever published. Is action of account at the bottom this whole deal thing?

     
    • Is action of account at the bottom this whole deal thing?

      July 26, 2015 at 2:30 PM

      @ Is action of account at the bottom this whole deal thing?
      It doesn’t matter if it’s on the bottom, in the middle or anywhere in between. What matters is, as long as we can feed our families, who cares?

       
  6. Mark Twang

    July 26, 2015 at 2:35 PM

    dog-move, oops I goofed.
    @ Is action of account at the bottom this whole deal thing?
    It doesn’t matter if it’s on the bottom, in the middle or anywhere in between. What matters is, as long as we can feed our families, who cares?

     
  7. dog-move

    July 27, 2015 at 3:36 AM

    Inquiring minds want to know.

     
    • Ray O. Lite

      July 27, 2015 at 5:31 AM

      @ Inquiring minds want to know.
      I’m not Alfred. Haven’t gotten around to using “that Name” YET. OHhhhhhhh that’s right. I forgot. Are you asking Alfred Adask or Allen Curtis that question? I presumed you were asking Adask. :-)

       
  8. dog-move

    July 28, 2015 at 3:13 PM

    I was just throwing it out there.

     
    • Bart Shavitz

      July 29, 2015 at 8:45 AM

      dog-move,
      @ I was just throwing it out there.
      Some people REFUSE to accept the “Lifeline thrown to them because the don’t like the thrower”.

       
      • Adask

        July 29, 2015 at 4:49 PM

        Perhaps they’ve learned that most “lifelines” come with a hook.

         
  9. Adask

    July 30, 2015 at 1:19 AM

    I am trying to communicate the possibility that very few people–and almost no institutions–will “throw you a lifeline” simply to help you–no strings attached. Most of the “helpers” have an angle, an unstated incentive to help to.

    Most of those who “are here to help you” often or even usually help you because doing so will help them even more. Maybe there’s a hook in the lifeline where YOU are converted into someone who assists the purported “helper”. Maybe there’s a hook in the system where, by helping you, your “helper” gets even more money, power or perqs from the government or some third party.

    I’m not trying to cynical. I’m not talking about the guy across the street who’ll lend you his lawnmower or give you a ride to town when your car breaks down. I’m talking about “professional helpers” who somehow profit from helping strangers.

     
  10. Mark Twang

    July 30, 2015 at 12:33 PM

    @ I’m not trying to cynical. I’m not talking about the guy across the street who’ll lend you his lawnmower or give you a ride to town when your car breaks down.
    My next door neighbors to the North are Lesbians. My neighbor across the street to the East are Drug sellers & Addicts. They are a part of the “immoral people” that make up our, excuse me, this GREAT NATION.
    I do not know Jonathan Cahn. I cannot grasp that he IS a Con man. BUT!! IF he is, I am too. I am just not as good a Con man as he is. Also, I AM NOT saying that you are even implying that he, Jonathan Cahn is a Con Man. Anything that is 2nd Nature to some people is GREEK to other people & because it is 2nd Nature to us, we think anybody else will know EXACTLY what we mean & I’m not trying to be cynical either. No News is good news to some people. The “GOOD NEWS” I am aware of is BAD NEWS for apparently most other people.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s