You have my permission to misquote me; but misquoting yourself is more problematic, especially when the primary text is three inches above this entry box. You said: "According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties any international agreement that this President has the authority to sign is fully binding on the USA and any President who follows him." I'm afraid when it comes to anonymous comments on websites, we're all subject to Death of the Author doctrine.
However, your assertion is manifestly untrue--and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty speaks to its untruth. But there is a far less obscure source for my contention. Today, SecState Kerry stated to Senate Foreign Relations that, "we are not negotiating a legally binding plan." I'm sure that he's no Tom Cotton fan and probably wishes that an agreement with Iran would be binding;, but his statement only acknowledges the weight of the law.
Kerry settled the matter (for today) as to whether the agreement is binding. The question of whether the Vienna Convention, to which we are not bound, gives other countries the right to interpret EAs (or any other agreement that fails of the senate's advice and consent) is, thankfully, beyond the scope of this response.
I would not shortchange Iran's understanding of the United States: we struggle to understand their internal frictions and they struggle to understand ours. Based on results, I think they get us better, but that's just my opinion. And far be it from me to suggest that the Iranians haven't picked up a ConLaw textbook to figure out just exactly what they are getting.
A little more research, please, because your principal example blunts your thrust. First, the Vienna Convention is not binding upon the United States as it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. That being said, the State Department considers some of its provisions as embodying "customary international law". (See: http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm)
However, State does not specify which provisions.
Your second example, the SOFA, is also flawed. A SOFA is the essence of an executive agreement (see, for example, SecDef Gates' testimony at 76-77, Hearings before Senate Armed Services, March-February, 2008); while it may require no congressional assent it is subject to congressional oversight as well as funding control--a future Congress can increase, sustain or reduce funding at will. Congress' ability to alter an EA depends upon the type of EA.
There are three categories of EAs and a full discussion is ill-suited for a blog post. However, you may find a complete lay discussion from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service here: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf
It would appear that the EA proposed by the president falls into the "sole executive agreement" (pg. 6 of the foregoing.) Having nothing to do with the merits of the proposed-but-not-yet-disclosed Iran deal, or the political wisdom of the forty-seven GOP letter writers, those cheerleading the deal-as-binding based on the president's legal authority should take a deep breath--the legality, in the case of the Iran deal (unlike for example, EAs dealing with only diplomatic recognition), is very unclear. Without getting too far into the weeds, I would recommend Prof. Jack Goldberg's series of articles analyzing the enormous ambiguities inherent in Obama's course. See http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/some-implications-of-president-obamas-plans-to-sidestep-congress-on-iranian-sanctions/
The one point you make which is spot on--Cotton's claim that the Senate "ratifies" a treaty--is the least significant element about the GOP letter as it has no bearing on the larger questions raised.
YR:
You have my permission to misquote me; but misquoting yourself is more problematic, especially when the primary text is three inches above this entry box. You said: "According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties any international agreement that this President has the authority to sign is fully binding on the USA and any President who follows him." I'm afraid when it comes to anonymous comments on websites, we're all subject to Death of the Author doctrine.
However, your assertion is manifestly untrue--and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty speaks to its untruth. But there is a far less obscure source for my contention. Today, SecState Kerry stated to Senate Foreign Relations that, "we are not negotiating a legally binding plan." I'm sure that he's no Tom Cotton fan and probably wishes that an agreement with Iran would be binding;, but his statement only acknowledges the weight of the law.
Kerry settled the matter (for today) as to whether the agreement is binding. The question of whether the Vienna Convention, to which we are not bound, gives other countries the right to interpret EAs (or any other agreement that fails of the senate's advice and consent) is, thankfully, beyond the scope of this response.
I would not shortchange Iran's understanding of the United States: we struggle to understand their internal frictions and they struggle to understand ours. Based on results, I think they get us better, but that's just my opinion. And far be it from me to suggest that the Iranians haven't picked up a ConLaw textbook to figure out just exactly what they are getting.
Yeah, Right:
A little more research, please, because your principal example blunts your thrust. First, the Vienna Convention is not binding upon the United States as it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. That being said, the State Department considers some of its provisions as embodying "customary international law". (See: http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm)
However, State does not specify which provisions.
Your second example, the SOFA, is also flawed. A SOFA is the essence of an executive agreement (see, for example, SecDef Gates' testimony at 76-77, Hearings before Senate Armed Services, March-February, 2008); while it may require no congressional assent it is subject to congressional oversight as well as funding control--a future Congress can increase, sustain or reduce funding at will. Congress' ability to alter an EA depends upon the type of EA.
There are three categories of EAs and a full discussion is ill-suited for a blog post. However, you may find a complete lay discussion from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service here: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf
It would appear that the EA proposed by the president falls into the "sole executive agreement" (pg. 6 of the foregoing.) Having nothing to do with the merits of the proposed-but-not-yet-disclosed Iran deal, or the political wisdom of the forty-seven GOP letter writers, those cheerleading the deal-as-binding based on the president's legal authority should take a deep breath--the legality, in the case of the Iran deal (unlike for example, EAs dealing with only diplomatic recognition), is very unclear. Without getting too far into the weeds, I would recommend Prof. Jack Goldberg's series of articles analyzing the enormous ambiguities inherent in Obama's course. See http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/some-implications-of-president-obamas-plans-to-sidestep-congress-on-iranian-sanctions/
The one point you make which is spot on--Cotton's claim that the Senate "ratifies" a treaty--is the least significant element about the GOP letter as it has no bearing on the larger questions raised.