The Iran nuke deal has no basis in law! Trump needs to scrap it

We are told that Obama’s nuke deal is not a treaty but a “Sole Executive Agreement”, and therefore, it does not require a two thirds approval vote by the United States Senate to have the force of law.

Of course, this assertion raises an immediate red flag because there is no mention in our Constitution delegating a power to the president to make a “Sole Executive Agreement” with foreign governments. As a matter of fact the limited power granted to the President in our Constitution regarding deals with foreign governments is stated as follows:

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…”

So, what is meant by the word “treaty” as the word was used and understood by our founders, and requires a two thirds approval vote by our Senate to have the force of law? In Federalist No. 64 Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:

”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”

And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, “Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…” So, we begin to learn that the word treaty as found in our Constitution is synonymous with a contract or bargain.

In addition to Hamilton’s use of the word “CONTRACTS” to describe a “treaty”, he goes on to explain why the president was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote. Hamilton points out the president, if he had such power:

“might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

So, as it turns out, our founders intentionally commanded by our Constitution, that any deals cooked up by the president with a foreign power would not have “the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate.

It is also important to note how much our founders feared an omnipotent president, and this is established when they refused giving the President Line-item veto power! Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how they suffered under that power and why it should not be given to the president. Franklin says:

‘”The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.’’

After reviewing the above documentation it becomes crystal clear that Obama’s nuke deal with Iran has no force of law unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate. And this is another mess made by Obama which President Trump needs to clean up so as to be within the four corners of our Constitution.


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

If it prevents Iran from completing its nuclear plans then the Donald should hold to this nonbinding gentlemen’s agreement
and the Senate should ratify it.

Pointing out that it is not a ratified treatment is helpful, but not sufficient cause for hysteria.

1 Like

What specifically did the US agree to do as part of the Iran deal/agreement? Be specific.


Nothing. No agreement can be made without the Senate’s advise and consent.


Oh, so you’re not interested in an honest discussion. Just like the old forum. Just checking. Not surprised.

By the way:

Looks like a lot of “advise and consent” passed by congress and signed into law.

I answered your question. How can the US agree to the Iran deal when it never was approve of by the Senate? Is the president not required to follow the rule of law and our Constitution?


An agreement can be reached before the senate approves. That doesn’t necessarily make the agreement valid.

So try again, but with less trolling this time.

What is the specific US involvement in the Iran nuke deal?

(also, see the post above this one regarding the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015-it nullifies your premise that there was no advise and consent on the Iran deal).

You seem to forget that aside from the President, the Senate, and only the Senate, not the House, is involved when making deals with foreign powers.


You seem to think that a bill that was signed into law can be done without the senate’s approval.

The senate approved the deal with the voted “yes” on HR 1191. The bill passed the senate 98-1. The senate provided their advise and consent with their “yes” vote on this bill, that became law.

So now that the entire premise of your OP has been disproved, please answer my question.

Exactly. And there was no approval by the Senate. So, there was no binding/lawful agreement reached. Once the Senate gives its approval, then, and only then, has the United States agreed to something. My original answer to your post is correct.


You seem to forget the House does not participate in treaty making.

The senate advised and consented on the law, and the president signed it. Your premise has been debunked.

Irrelevant. The senate, by a vote of 98-1, agreed that the Iran nuke deal was valid and provided conditions for its existence. It’s now law. The house didn’t have to be a part of it, but they were.

only in your mind.

And look, I understand your reluctance to answer my original question:

“What specifically did the US agree to do as part of the Iran deal/agreement? Be specific.”

If you answer that, then you’d also be defeating your own premise.

I’m sorry to say, you’re wrong on this one. Not only did Obama have the power to negotiate this agreement, but the senate advised and consented via its 98-1 vote on the bill I cited.

No, in the eyes of the law.

What is the proper thing for the US to do about the un-ratified treaty?

Suppose the treaty specifies that the US do something.
Does the unratified status of the treaty make it illegal for the US to do that thing?
Or does it require the US to do the opposite of that thing?

Or does the US have the option (not the obligation but the option) to do that thing if the President thinks that “that thing” is better for the country than “not that thing”?

It sounds a little like the OP is claiming that the absence of a ratified agreement implies an obligation of some sort.

1 Like

The Senate never signed off on Obama’s concocted deal with Iran.


Provide the document where the Senate gave its consent to the specific deal cooked up by the Obama Administration with Iran. H.R. 1191 is not an agreement between Iran and the United States.