Obama Must Engage Congress, not Attack It, If He Wants Its Cooperation

Princeton University's great presidential and constitutional scholar Edward Corwin famously said : “the Constitution is an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American directing American foreign policy.” ~~~~~ And, indeed, throughout American history, there are examples of disagreements between Congress and the President over a President's stated foreign policy position. ** In 1920, 88 members of the House of Representatives sent a cable to British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and the British Parliament to protest against Britain’s treatment of Irish prisoners being held without arraignment or trial. This was directly contrary to the policy of President Woodrow Wilson, who sought closer relations with Great Britain and who did not support Ireland’s push for independence. ** In 1927, the Senate’s anti-imperialist “peace progressives,” led by Senator William Borah, an Idaho Republican, wrote directly to the Mexican president in an effort to renegotiate oil leases granted to US oil companies under an agreement reached by President Coolidge. ** In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern traveled to Cuba to negotiate directly with Fidel Castro about easing relations. In fact, the practice goes all the way back to the beginning of America, when the House, led by Jeffersonian pro-France members, voted a resolution in support of the radical new French Constitution ib 1792 despite President Washington's public effort to keep America neutral in the looming European wars. And today, that time-honored possibility of a President-vs-Congress battle over foreign policy has once again surfaced. ~~~~~ During the weekend 47 Republican Senators wrote an open letter to the leadership of Iran, warning that any nuclear deal signed between Iran and US President Barack Obama might not last beyond his presidency, without Congress signing off on it as well. Here is the text of the letter. ~~~~~ An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. "It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. 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. First, under our Constitution, while the President negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement. Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the President may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas Senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance President Obama will leave office in January 2017 while Senators will remain in office well beyond then - perhaps decades. What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next President could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time. We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress. Sincerely, Senators Cotton, Hatch, Grassley, McConnell, Shelby, McCain, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions, Enzi, Crapo, Graham, Cornyn, Burr, Thune, Isakson, Vitter, Barrasso, Wicker, Risch, Kirk, Blunt, Moran, Portman, Boozman, Toomey, Hoeven, Rubio, Johnson, Paul, Lee, Ayotte, Heller, Scott, Cruz, Fischer, Capito, Cassidy, Gardner, Lankford, Daines, Rounds, Perdue, Tillis, Ernst, Sasse, Sullivan. ~~~~~ President Barack Obama has criticised the letter from Republican Senators to Iran, accusing them of "interfering" in ongoing nuclear talks. He said the 47 senators made an "unusual coalition" with Iran's hard-line religious leaders. At a press conference today at the UN, Hillary Clinton said that the GOP Senators either were helping Iran or trying to undercut President Obama. The controversial talks on Iran's nuclear program are at a critical stage, with an outline agreement due on 31 March. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif made an open response to the Senators' letter -- only the two Tennessee Senators, Corker and Alexander, were not signatories. Zarif gave his explanation as to why the deal might be agreed and remain in place : If the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution. Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations." ~~~~~ The constititional authority for congressional consent to treaties is clear. It is required. The question raised by the Senators' letter seems to focus on whether the Iran deal is being negotiated under the UN nuclear anti-proliferation treaty - already ratified by the US and so not requiring congressional consent - or whether it is a free-standing executive agreement not usually requiring congressional consent. But in either case, Congress could withhold funding to carry out any such deal. Fine points to be argued in federal courts. ~~~~~ But, there is also the matter of the congressional economic sanctions against Iran. Here, the letter is on surer footing. World powers imposed sanctions on Iran because they felt it was not being honest about its nuclear programme and was seeking the ability to secretly build a nuclear bomb. Teheran denied this. Talks between Iran and six world powers, known as the P5+1, have tried to deal away the suspicions by controlling Iran's nuclear program, in exchange for easing the sanctions. Specifically, the world powers want to curtail Iran's ability to enrich uranium, which can be used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons. Disagreement centers on how to limit Iran's development and use of centrifuges that enrich uranium. Faster enrichment would cut the time Iran would need to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a weapon, were it to choose to do so. The US wants this "break-out window" to be at least a year long. It is not known if Iran has a warhead or suitable delivery system or has revealed all its nuclear sites. If this deal is outside the UN nuclear anti-proliferation treaty, then the Senators clearly have a role to play. ~~~~~ In any event, Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid denounced the letter. "Let's be clear," Mr Reid said on the floor of the Senate on Monday : "Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs." The letter comes shortly after Congress invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress on the issue of the Iran talks. That move was vociferously disapproved by the White House because Congress acted unilaterally. Republicans now control both chambers of Congress after winning elections last November, giving them considerable leverage over Obama. ~~~~~ Dear readers, in a rational world, President Obama and his Democrat followers would ask why the 'entire' Senate GOP membership would take the unusual position of criticizing a President in the middle of international negotiations. Why would the GOP House Speaker invite an Israeli prime minister to explain why the Iran deal is dangerously wrong. These are not ordinary interventions into the presidential conduct of foreign policy. If President Obama were behaving rationally, he would ask WHY. He would feel the fear of Congress and America about the deal that Obama even refuses to discuss in detail. But, while President Obama acts irrationally, he can expect major vocal congressional resistance. No President can forever ride roughshod over his own citizens and their Congress without being confronted.