Recently, Senator Tom Cotton, author of the ridiculous and traitorous letter sent to Iran’s leadership by 47 Republican Senators in which these lawmakers threatened to sabotage (and even undo) any deal that may be reached between the United States and Iran.
“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system,” Cotton and friends wrote in their letter. “Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement. 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.”
“President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then–perhaps decades,” the letter promises.
Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith noted in Lawfare that Cotton’s gang got the Constitution entirely wrong:
The letter states that, “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification (my emphasis).” Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may, “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”
“This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency,” he wrote. “But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.”
Iran foreign minister Dr. Javad Zarif also noticed that these Republicans did not seem to have even a remote understanding of the Constitution they allegedly know and love.
“I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law,” Zarif responded at the time. “The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”
But, of course, Republicans can not be bothered by little things such as facts. Less than two months after Cotton embarrassed himself once again by complaining that Iran controls its own capital city, the freshman Senator was back on Twitter — challenging Zarif, who schooled him on the U.S. Constitution, to debate the constitution.
This is where we are faced with the unfortunate reality that Zarif is the adult in this situation. Zarif could have once again destroyed Cotton. He could have attacked the United States for the actions of its more extremist elements. He could have done many things. Instead, he simply wished Cotton well.
“Serious diplomacy, not macho personal smear, is what we need,” Zarif tweeted. “Congrats on Ur new born. May U and Ur family enjoy him in peace .”
Zarif seems determined to be mature about things — a reality that may be problematic for those in our government who are bound and determined to act like children.
Featured Image via NYMag/PressTV
