Just "generally?" Interactions between heads of state are always done between heads of state. But this wasn't an interaction between heads of state.
Wow...
Yeah, again, you're clearly being obtuse here.
Which law, specifically, are you talking about here?
Are you kidding?
The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section II.
Furthermore, the specific law that requires the Congress to act is the CISADA and the ISA which is the basis for 3 Presidential Executive Orders covering Iranian sanctions.
Obama does not have the power to lift all sanctions on Iran; only a portion which has been lawfully delegated to executive authority.
Every deal we've come to understand to be on the table deals the sanctions for the nuclear program. Obama does not have the power to lift the sanctions. And as it stands, Congress likely has enough votes to override a Presidential veto and the leadership surely knows this.
Again, there can be no deal that lifts sanctions without going through Congress. Not unless Iran agrees to stopping their program without first lifting sanctions; which is highly doubtful.
It's pretty clear that he is going to consider this a "sole executive action", not call it a treaty, and so avoid the advice/consent clause required for Treaties.
Yes this is likely, and no I don't support this approach.
His statement today that "foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels" seems to validate that. But they've already decided to bypass Congress:
Yes, I've read the news articles just as you have. The point is that they cannot likely get a meaningful deal without going through Congress because only Congress can fully lift the sanctions imposed on Iran.
That's simply false, and as noted above, the Administration plans on avoiding Congress entirely.
As noted above was speculation. We can't say it's false because you post an article where someone points out a possible gameplan; and again, Obama cannot lift the ISA and CISADA alone or by executive action.
First, both of the current sanctions laws contain provisions permitting the President to waive sanctions for up to six months. Those provision were intended just as a temporary measure during negotiations, but if Obama says "I'm lifting those sanctions for six months", Congress has no mechanism to stop him. And he'll just keep doing that.
This is false.
Congressional Research Service:
Authority to Waive or Lift Economic Sanctions
The ability to impose and ease economic sanctions with some nimbleness and responsiveness to changing events is key to effectively using the tool in furtherance of national security or foreign policy objectives.
Historically, both the President and Congress have recognized this essential requirement and have worked together to provide the President substantial flexibility. In the collection of laws that are the statutory basis for the U.S. economic sanctions regime on Iran, the President retains, in varying degrees, the authority to tighten and relax restrictions.
In the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA; P.L. 111-195, as amended; 22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.),4 Congress grants to the President the authority to terminate most of the sanctions imposed on Iran in that act as well as the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-158; 22 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), and Iran Freedom and Counter-proliferation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-239; 22 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.).
Before terminating these sanctions, however, the President must certify that the government of Iran has ceased its engagement in the two critical areas of terrorism and weapons, as set forth in Section 401 of CISADA— SEC. 401 [22 U.S.C. 8551].
GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) SUNSET.—The provisions of this Act (other than sections 105 and 305 and the amendments made by sections 102, 107, 109, and 205) shall terminate, and section 13(c)(1)(B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as added by section 203(a), shall cease to be effective, on the date that is 30 days after the date on which the President certifies to Congress that— (1) the Government of Iran has ceased providing support for acts of international terrorism and no longer satisfies the requirements for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism (as defined in section 301) under— 2 National defense authorization acts were used to enact new sanctions and amend existing provisions on Iran in FY2010, FY2012, and FY2013.
3 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa and Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Implementation of the Iran Nuclear Deal, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., January 28, 2014; HFAC Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa, Examining What a Nuclear Iran Deal Means for Global Security, November 20, 2014; HFAC Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Iranian Nuclear Talks: Negotiating a Bad Deal? November 18, 2014; Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Negotiations on Iran’s Nuclear Program, February 4, 2014, Regional Implications Of A Nuclear Deal With Iran, June 12, 2014, Iran: Status of the P-5+1, July 29, 2014, and Dismantling Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program: Next Steps To Achieve A Comprehensive Deal, December 3, 2014. 4 Section 401(a) and (b)(1) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA; P.L. 111-195; 22 U.S.C. 8551), as amended.
...
and (2) Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of, and verifiably dismantled its, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles and ballistic missile launch technology. (b) PRESIDENTIAL WAIVERS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The President may waive the application of sanctions under section 103(b), the requirement to impose or maintain sanctions with respect to a person under section 105(a), 105A(a), 105B(a), or 105C(a) the requirement to include a person on the list required by section 105(b), 105A(b), 105B(b), or 105C(b), the application of the prohibition under section 106(a), or the imposition of the licensing requirement under section 303(c) with respect to a country designated as a Destination of Diversion Concern under section 303(a), if the President determines that such a waiver is in the national interest of the United States. International Terrorism Determination To lift the majority of the economic sanctions imposed by CISADA, the President must determine and certify that the government of Iran no longer supports acts of international terrorism. The government of Iran is designated as a state sponsor of acts of international terrorism, effective January 1984, pursuant to the Secretary of State’s authorities and responsibilities under Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979. Various statutes impede or prohibit foreign aid, financing, and trade because of that designation. Three laws (§620A, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2371]; §40, Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2780]; and §6(j), Export Administration Act of 1979 [50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)]) form the “terrorist list.”5 Because these statutes are not Iran-specific, they are not included in Table 1. The President holds the authority to remove the designation of any country from the terrorist list. Though each of the three laws provides slightly different procedures, the authority to delist Iran resides with the President, and generally requires him to find that • there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the government; • the government is not supporting acts of international terrorism; and • the government has assured that it will not support terrorism in the future.
--end quote--
So no, the President cannot just waive a magic wand and lift the sanctions.
Second, regardless of what the law says regarding trade with Iran, any such laws depend upon the Executive Branch -- i.e. the President -- for enforcement. And if he issues an Executive Order telling the Office of Foreign Assets Control not to enforce sanctions and the rest of his Administration not to enforce those laws -- like he already did with immigration laws -- Congress has no effective remedy.
That's not true in the slightest. Barack Obama could be impeached for refusing the uphold sanctions against Iran. This has nothing to do with immigration.
The laws will still be on the books (just like those immigration laws) but they'll be meaningless because there will be no enforcement.
Yeah, that's not true.
You obviously missed a great deal if you think the Administration would deliberately break the law to support Iran, and you'd be insane if you think the Iranians would suspend their nuclear program without assurances that the next President wouldn't just walk in and reimpose sanctions.
The President isn't permitted to ignore the current Congress just because he liked the prior one better.
No one said he should. The point is that you misrepresented the facts when you said this was more or less pattern and practice for this Administration. That's not true.
If he wants them formally repealed, he needs Congress. But according to the NYT article, the Administration has already decided not to do that. They'll just leave them on the books, and refuse to enforce them.
I highly doubt the Administration takes this course of action, regardless of what the NYT says.
And if you want further evidence of that, Obama's silence is deafening. If he truly plans on seeking ratification of a treaty,
I don't think Obama will seek ratification, nor do I think that's the most important issue here.
and following the sanctions absent repeal,
This is the actual issue.
If Congress does not repeal sanctions, the President must enforce them.
But .... again ..... this has nothing to do with Netanyahu's speech now does it?
he could easily tamp down this whole furor by simply saying exactly that. Announce that Congress will have the right to vote on any treaty, and that the sanctions will remain in place and enforced until Congress repeals them. But he's said nothing like that despite the months-long controversy,
But the Administration has spoken out on this issue, repeatedly.
and not involving Congress at all
But that's a lie. Congressional leadership at the committee and subcommittee level has been actively briefed regarding the negotiations. Congress is also free to convene hearings as they see fit.
You're buying into talking points.
-- and proceeding in the face of what seems to be very strong opposition -- suggests he has no intention of ever submitting it to Congress.
Submitting the proposal or the sanctions?
I don't see those as the same thing.
Again, I'm not arguing in favor of the deal, and this seems tangential to the original point which was that you think it's appropriate for Congress to invite a foreign leader to speak without the approval of the President.