Sunday, May 28th | 3 Sivan 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
March 9, 2015 11:37 am

Republican Senators in Letter to Iran: Any Nuclear Deal With Obama Can Be Revoked

avatar by JNS.org

Email a copy of "Republican Senators in Letter to Iran: Any Nuclear Deal With Obama Can Be Revoked" to a friend

Any nuclear deal Iran signs with President Obama can be revoked by the next president and modified by Congress at any time, senators said in a letter to Iran. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

JNS.org – A group of 47 Republican US senators wrote an open letter to Iran explaining that any deal signed by President Barack Obama is merely an executive agreement if it does not include Senate approval, and that such a deal can be revoked by a future president.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system,” the senators wrote. “Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress. Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.”

While the letter, which was first reported by Bloomberg News, was addressed to Iran, it is more likely directed at Obama in order to persuade the president to give Congress oversight of a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Avi

    Good move here. It explicitly states in Constitution that Senate must approve treaties. I doubt President will attempt an illegal end around like his recess appointments, immigration executive order, and stacking of the NLRB.

  • As if the Iranians were serious about honoring the treaty in the first place

    http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/a-mini-5-1-question-quiz-for-secretary.html

    Answer to question 3

    Iranians: Geneva is ‘Treaty of Hudaybiyyah’
    by CLARE M. LOPEZ

    Although it is doubtful that any of Kerry’s advisers is even remotely familiar with this key episode in the accounts about Muhammad and the early Muslims, the Center for Security Policy explained the story in its 2010 book, “Shariah: The Threat to America.” The context is about situations in which Muslim forces might lawfully enter into a treaty or truce with the enemy. With troubling ramifications for current day negotiations, those situations demonstrate the centrality and importance of deceit in any agreement between Muslims and infidels. As it is recounted, in the year 628 CE, Muhammad (whose forces already controlled Medina) agreed to a 10-year truce with the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, primarily because he realized that his forces were not strong enough to take the city at the time. Islamic doctrine in fact forbids Muslims from entering into a jihad or battle without the reasonable certainty of being able to prevail. In such cases, as with Muhammad, Muslims are permitted to enter into a temporary ceasefire or hudna, with the proviso that no such truce may exceed 10 years (because that’s the length of the agreement Muhammad signed). And so, Muhammad agreed to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. But just two years later, in 630 CE, now with some 10,000 fighters under his command, Muhammad broke the treaty and marched into Mecca.  

  • E Pluribus Wombat

    It sounds like Obama will shut down Congress and the Supreme Court then. Probably have to suspend elections too.

Algemeiner.com