The Review Act was invalid before it was ever signed by the president due to its content and purpose to void the Constitution's superior voice

Iran Agreement requires Advice and Consent

What is being offered here is a take that some will say is not possible. However, considering that Congress carries more power than the executive branch it seems that the Senate should be dealing with substance instead of presidential semantics. When grilled by the Congressional committee, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked why this pact with Iran was not identified as a treaty. He answered that a treaty would never be approved by the Senate. The point is that Kerry essentially conceded that the agreement was in substance a treaty, which brings about the purpose of this opinion.

If the Iran Nuclear Agreement is by internal criteria and substance actually a treaty, there arises a situation where the Senate and House cannot in good conscience categorize this deal for consideration under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act passed a few months ago. That bill was passed under the false pretenses that the nuclear negotiations were proceeding without the full weight of a treaty, defined as ‚Äúa formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade,‚Äù which, in fact, it is. This being the case, the Review Act that was certified by the Senate is, in itself, a void act, having been created to address something that doesn’t exist except in name only. The do-si-do cannot deter the advice and consent duty of the Senate when a treaty is offered for ratification whatever title it sports. It matters not what terminology was used to disguise the force and purpose of the nuclear agreement, and the Senate is free to exercise its power in this and other instances when a treaty is offered for approval. It is incumbent upon the Senate to designate this agreement as a treaty in fact, and consideration by that august body be undertaken applying the advice and consent rules laid out in the Constitution, Article II, Section 2: [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; (emphasis mine). In so doing, the Senate would then vote on the treaty according to the ratification process prescribed by our founding documents that require a two-thirds vote in favor of a treaty in order for it to be accepted. To go further, any agreement or treaty approved by the Congress cannot counter the Constitution in any aspect, else it becomes null and void as, according to our Constitution, nothing shall outweigh the Constitution—it reigns supreme to protect the United States of America. Article VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; (emphasis mine).

The president has, from the outset, attempted to subvert the advice and consent process by promoting this agreement as a non-treaty deal; and one that is hardly worth the paper it’s written on as having no expectation Iran will honor the contract while expecting the other parties to uphold their end. Which begs the question of why America would bother to negotiate with a nation that had no intention of retaining the precepts contained within, particularly as Iran has already abrogated the contract. The truth is that this is indeed a treaty involving five other countries and the United Nations and it must be handled constitutionally, arguments that this is anything less and the Review Act’s passage notwithstanding. This whole dance has been an attempt by the president to slide a treaty past the Congress cloaked as a lesser document which is detrimental to the United States’ defense and that of its allies. The Senate must insist on undertaking consideration of the nuclear accord with Iran as a treaty, properly enforcing Congressional power no matter what it takes to do so. Are there senators willing to stand against the attempt to undercut exact constitutional process by the president’s invention of a go-around of procedure? The Review Act was invalid before it was ever signed by the president due to its content and purpose to void the Constitution’s superior voice. It would take a Constitutional amendment, properly ratified by two-thirds of the States, to nullify Article II, Section 2. And monkeying with terminology to avoid calling this agreement a treaty cannot alter that.

A. Dru Kristenev -- Bio and Archives Former newspaper publisher, A. Dru Kristenev, grew up in the publishing industry working every angle of a paper, from ad composition and sales, to personnel management, copy writing, and overseeing all editorial content. During her tenure as a news professional, Kristenev traveled internationally as a representative of the paper and, on separate occasions, non-profit organizations. Since 2007, Kristenev has authored five fact-filled political suspense novels, the Baron Series, and two non-fiction books, all available on Amazon. Carrying an M.S. degree and having taught at premier northwest universities, she is the trustee of Scribes’ College of Journalism, which mission is to train a new generation of journalists in biblical standards of reporting. More information about the college and how to support it can be obtained by contacting Kristenev at [email protected].

ChangingWind (changingwind.org) is a solutions-centered Christian ministry. Donate Here

{/exp:ce_cache:it}