JimHackerMP wrote:Now, as for the presidency being out of balance, we've had various events that have required a "national leader" which have expanded those powers. The civil war, two world wars, the cold war, and the growth of the modern media have blown the "administrator-president" up into what was called, during the Nixon administration, the "imperial presidency". Some of that was dismantled under Ford, supposedly, but not all.

Today, nobody wins a presidential election by saying "Oh, I'm just going to let things be run from the Hill for the next four to eight years, just like the Founding Fathers imagined." You have to have--or at least appear to have--an "agenda" of some sort to get elected. That's probably another reason why the founders didn't want a direct national popular vote (besides it would have been impossible with the level of communications technology or rather lack thereof in 1787) is because there was no need for there to be a real "national leader" of the style we have today.

This is why I disagree with you, Dr Fate: I think the presidency has trampled on the constitution far more than the supreme court is even close to capable of doing.

“For 228 years the Constitution provided a way out of that mess by allowing treaties to be with the advise and consent of 67 U.S. Senators. Why is this not considered a treaty?” Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) asked Kerry at today’s hearing.

“Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years ago trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate. Frankly, it’s become physically impossible. That’s why,” Kerry said.

“Because you can’t pass a treaty anymore. And it’s become impossible to, you know, schedule. It’s become impossible to pass. And I sat there leading the charge on the disabilities treaty, which fell to basically ideology and politics, so I think that’s the reason why.”

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) confirmed Kerry’s answer: “This isn’t a treaty because it was difficult to pass. Is that — is that correct?”

“Well, it’s not — there are a lot of other reasons. We felt, we don’t have diplomatic relations with Iran. It’s very complicated with six other countries. It’s this very complicated process,” Kerry said. “So we thought that the easiest way to get something that had the leverage, had the accountability, could achieve our goal was through a political agreement. That’s what we have.”

Kerry got into a testy exchange earlier in the hearing with Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who called out the secretary of State’s perpetual response that Congress needs to offer a better option if they don’t like the nuclear deal.

“Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, it is not Congress’s job; this is the administration. And if you would use the treaty process as provided by the constitution, maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation,” Perry said. “Furthermore, you know, you say, ‘Well, this is the only deal we could get, that there’s no better deal.’ Congress has a long history of instituting better deals. Example, 280 treaties, including 80 multilateral accords modified by Congress, including the arms control agreement, SALT II and the Threshold Test Ban treaty that failed to reach a vote and were modified.”

“So there is a history for that, of getting a better deal. And if the ayatollah doesn’t like it and doesn’t want to negotiate it, oh, boo-hoo. We’re — we’re here for America. We stand for America. You represent America.”

“Congressman, I don’t need any lessons from you about who I represent. I’ve represented and fought for our country since I was out of college,” Kerry snapped back. “Don’t give me any lessons about that, OK?”

“Now, let me just make it crystal clear to you. This is America’s interest, because America is the principal guarantor of security in the region and particularly with respect to some of our closest friends. Now, we believe that Iran was marching towards a weapon or the capacity to have a weapon, and we’ve rolled that back, Congressman,” he continued.

“OK, that’s your opinion,” Perry interjected.

“That’s indisputable — no,” Kerry countered. “That’s a fact.”

JimHackerMP wrote:Sorry to take so long to get back to you.

But you're preaching to the choir, really. Believe me I know that he has to get his own way, constitution notwithstanding.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) confirmed Kerry’s answer: “This isn’t a treaty because it was difficult to pass. Is that — is that correct?”

“Well, it’s not — there are a lot of other reasons. We felt, we don’t have diplomatic relations with Iran. It’s very complicated with six other countries. It’s this very complicated process,” Kerry said. “So we thought that the easiest way to get something that had the leverage, had the accountability, could achieve our goal was through a political agreement. That’s what we have.”

danivon wrote:And the full quote happily provides the context. There is one way it can be read that damns the administration:

That because Congress would not pass a treaty they just bypassed them, violating the Constitution.

And another way that does not:

That because Congress would not pass a treaty, they negotiated something that was not a full treaty instead, but a political agreement. The handy note that some members of Congress sent to Iran may also have helped their negotiators to alter things so it was not a full treaty.

This part is clear - Kerry does not agree that they just signed a treaty to bypass Congress -

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) confirmed Kerry’s answer: “This isn’t a treaty because it was difficult to pass. Is that — is that correct?”

“Well, it’s not — there are a lot of other reasons. We felt, we don’t have diplomatic relations with Iran. It’s very complicated with six other countries. It’s this very complicated process,” Kerry said. “So we thought that the easiest way to get something that had the leverage, had the accountability, could achieve our goal was through a political agreement. That’s what we have.”

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh, that's such a stark contrast to a treaty!--said no one ever.

Another way of saying it, "It's not a treaty because we're saying it's not a treaty."

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh, that's such a stark contrast to a treaty!--said no one ever.

Another way of saying it, "It's not a treaty because we're saying it's not a treaty."

Executive Agreements as defined in US are such not-treaties. Status of forces agreements are not treaties, for example. The 1973 Vietnam peace deal was not a treaty. The Yalta and Potsdam agreements of 1945 were not treaties.

This may be against your view of the right balance, but it is not a newly minted occurrence that started with Obama.

Get the Bricker or George Amendments through and Congress will have power to ratify/defeat executive agreements. Until then, it will always be the case that the Executive will seek to mak agreements with foreign powers and not have to second guess the will of Congress.

danivon wrote:Here is an article that explains what executive agreements are and shows how over time they have become more prevalent than treaties. Many are pre-authorised by treaty or other Congressional laws. But many are not. And they go back a long time.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article ... ion12.html

Washington (CNN)If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?

According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.

That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.

"This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty."

The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party's newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.

It's that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a "nonbinding agreement" rather than a "treaty," which the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" on.

The distinction -- and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress -- turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.

"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, sure, because having "a capacity for enforcement" can happen if it's not "legally binding."

Orwellian torturing of the language is alive and well.

Basically as I understand it there are already sanctions in place, under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 which expires at the end of 2016. One provision of that Act is that some sanctions can be waived by the President if he deems it in the national interest of the USA (and he has to report that to Congress), and that the whole Act can be ended with 30 days notice from the President if he certifies to Congress that Iran is both no longer a state sponsor of terrorism and is no longer pursuing nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic weapons. Either can be used.

The Environmental Protection Agency says it is going forward with a new federal rule to protect small streams, tributaries and wetlands, despite a court ruling that blocked the measure in 13 central and Western states.

The EPA says the rule, which took effect Friday in more than three dozen states, will safeguard drinking water for millions of Americans.

Opponents pledged to continue to fight the rule, emboldened by a federal court decision Thursday that blocked it from Alaska to Arkansas. www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/epa ... rt-ruling/

Even though the Clean Water Act exempts stock ponds, and Mr. Johnson had obtained the necessary state permits, the EPA ordered him in January 2014 to restore the area to its original condition or accumulate fines of $37,500 a day. Instead, Mr. Johnson hired a lawyer.

“The EPA is out to expand its power, and I’m a test case,” said Mr. Johnson in a statement. “We’re going to fight them all the way.”

Last week, his attorneys — including the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Budd-Falen law firm in Cheyenne — filed a lawsuit against the agency to stop it from enforcing the compliance order.

Because the creek feeds into the Green River the EPA seems to feel that they hold jurisdiction over it, though calling that stream “navigable waters” would require expanding the definition of “boats” to include “galoshes.” Also, the “dam” in question was composed of sand, gravel, clay and concrete blocks, which the agency decided met the criteria for “pollutants.” (Aside from the cinder blocks, those materials are also locally known as “the ground.”) Amazingly, Johnson had filed for and been granted the appropriate local and state permits to have a stock pond, and stock ponds are specifically excluded from the traditional wording of the Clean Water Act. No matter… the agency felt that action was required to save the world and they were going to leap to the rescue.

The truly ironic part is that Johnson had the water in the creek tested above and below his pond and the results indicated that the downstream water was actually cleaner than when it came in because the pond allowed sediment to settle out. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/31/e ... tock-pond/