better lead to complete denuclearization. Or what? Do they now want him to bomb North Korea? Do they want to send it troops? If only they would have demanded as much from Iran.
Link: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/democratic-senators-seek-complete-dismantlement-of-north-koreas-nuclear-and-missile-programmes/articleshow/64462216.cms
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
denuclearization as part of this process? How are they differing here? Sounds like they are trying to hold him to his already stated promise.
(no message)
Releasing high-profile letters to the executive branch is standard practice. Often they are secretly solicited, to help strengthen the President’s hand at the negotiating table.
The letter that Tom Cotton and other dopes wrote and sent to the government of Iran during the JCPOA negotiations was exceptional. And outrageous.
But I don’t seem to remember you kvetching. Wonder why.
(no message)
(no message)
I'm asking here. In the case of NK, there is no deal yet to bring before congress for approval. At no pont thus far am I aware of trump threatening to make an agreement with NK that does not first receive congressional approval.
Isn't that correct?
(no message)
you can't trust any deal that Obama made. Any deal that Obama made with congressional approval would be binding. The GOP had grave concerns about that deal, and since it bypassed constitutional congressioanl approval, they were letting the Iraninas know that it would be reversed if power changed party hands. Because of that letter, the world was not surprised when we pulled out after the Trump election, and the other countries all clearly know that no agreement from the US is a real deal unless it is also approved by congress.
The constitution is clear on this, and it was another example of Obama's presidential over reach. Now, it works the other way against Trump if he tries to be a cowboy without congressional approval. If that happens, then nobody on the Right has a right to complain. But that hasn't happened yet. I don't think that it will.
Unforgivable. Cotton is the worst of our current senators, which is saying something.
As to your constitutional argument: you are simply wrong. The Supreme Court has found over and over that Executive Agreements are not only legal but binding. Over and over.
Did we claim that they were not in compliance as the reason? Did we need that reason?
If so, then how did we pull out of the Paris Accord that Obama signed?
I'm asking.
Which is what Trump did. It works both ways.
(no message)
All arms control agreements have escape clauses, allowing signatories to pull out after a certain time frame. And they all come up for renewal, so presidents can opt not to renew them. That's how Bush killed the ABM treaty, and Trump is killing the INF treaty (with Putin's help on that one). The JCPOA had the longest such period I have ever seen - essentially 15 years.
Executive power is sweeping. Too sweeping.
I agree about the need to curtail exec power as you know.
And presidents have done it, citing their power as commander-in-chief.
NAFTA, for instance. Trump could have killed the whole thing, with or without Congress.
(no message)
Ain’t gonna happen. Having said that, significant restrictions need to be part of this. That is going to be the rub of the thing.
Same with Iran. The perfect which you will never get can be the enemy of the good. Withdrawal from that agreement was not a good idea.
(no message)