Photo Credit: White House.gov
The White House logo

The Obama administration is escalating its fiery spat over an open letter sent by a group of senators to Iran: this time Vice President Joe Biden, who spent 30 years as a leading senator in the Congress, hit back hard in response.

“The letter sent on March 9th by 47 Republican Senators to the Islamic Republic of Iran, expressly designed to undercut a sitting president in the midst of sensitive international negotiations, is beneath the dignity of an institution I revere,” Biden said in a statement late Monday.

Advertisement

The letter warned that any deal signed by the president can be nullified during the next administration. “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,” the senators pointed out.

“This letter, in the guise of a Constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States,” Biden contended.

“Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safe or stronger,” he said.

“In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country-much less a longtime foreign adversary – that the president does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them,” Biden wrote.

“This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments – a message that is as false as it is dangerous.”

“The decision to undercut our president and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine.”

Advertisement

SHARE
Previous articleIntroducing ‘Core Essentials of Leadership’
Next articleIDF Officer Hit by Syrian Gunfire
Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.

56 COMMENTS

  1. Why are the American people allowing these 47 Senators even one more second in United States office?They should be recalled and have new elections on each of their seats. To write a letter to another country to warn them that dealing with the executive office of the US is not in their best interests, is complete and utter treason. What the heck were they thinking? they have demonstrated they are INCAPABLE for their seats. Dangerous too.

    I’ve never been so angry politically in my life. This one really takes the cake. I now fear it IS possible for them to go even lower. This is dangerous nonsense and only appeals to those who desire sedition and anarchy.

  2. Are you sure you know what you are saying?: On the Lawfare blog, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith describes the letter as “embarrassing,” because it’s technically 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.”

  3. Are you sure you know what you are saying?: On the Lawfare blog, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith describes the letter as “embarrassing,” because it’s technically 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.”

  4. Are you sure you know what you are saying?: On the Lawfare blog, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith describes the letter as “embarrassing,” because it’s technically 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.”

  5. Truly I was thinking more of his EO’s where he wants to create law here. That is not his role. This letter happened as a result of him threatening to veto anything the Congress may do that does not agree with him. BO is stirring a ‘ pot’ and this is what he is getting for it.

  6. Truly I was thinking more of his EO’s where he wants to create law here. That is not his role. This letter happened as a result of him threatening to veto anything the Congress may do that does not agree with him. BO is stirring a ‘ pot’ and this is what he is getting for it.

  7. Truly I was thinking more of his EO’s where he wants to create law here. That is not his role. This letter happened as a result of him threatening to veto anything the Congress may do that does not agree with him. BO is stirring a ‘ pot’ and this is what he is getting for it.

  8. What is treason is allowing and Islamic Dictator occupying the Whitehouse who is not even an American citizen to change laws and makes laws that are uncostittutional and how this Imposter and Terrorist Pimp is allowed to break laws and arm and abett Terrorist Islamic Nations and how Barak Hussein Obama appoints the Muslim Brotherhood to offices in the Whitehouse and Pentagon and even the Military .When are our elected officials going to have this Terrorist Pimp and his Islamic Regime arrested ?

  9. I guess you have forgotten that your Messiah Barack Hussein Obama has been ruling by making Executive Decisions without going through Congress. So if it is good for the goose, then it must be good for the gander as well. If you want to be angry with anyone, it should be yourself. You most probably voted for the most anti semitic President in US history.

  10. Cody Flecker Well said Cody, well said. Those 47 Senators should be applauded NOT recalled for having the back bone to stand up to the worse US admin ever in the history of our nation. Now we're having a tea party…LOL!!! Chas Holman has NO CLUE as his messiah BHO.

  11. Actually, The USA has done remarkably well with Obama, No American soldiers to fight in arab wars, a fantastic economic recovery, major deficit cuts, affordable care act…
    The USA will not protect Israel, The USA will only sell Israel arms. The USA has enough internal problems to contend with..

  12. time people rise up .it,s terrible how these two don,t know how to stand up for what is right.why did a lot of you vote for a muslin president.?I know alot of you didn,t vote for him.They took people off park benches,& some vote lots of times ,I remember one said he voted 75 times.If it would of been done right I don,t believe aboma was really voted in.It wasn,t a fair election..

  13. time people rise up .it,s terrible how these two don,t know how to stand up for what is right.why did a lot of you vote for a muslin president.?I know alot of you didn,t vote for him.They took people off park benches,& some vote lots of times ,I remember one said he voted 75 times.If it would of been done right I don,t believe aboma was really voted in.It wasn,t a fair election..

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...