Kerry's constitutional creativity

Politicians' claims of allegiance to the constitution are mere ritual and often they are knowingly dishonest ritual.

Politicians don't only lie about their agendas, their religious beliefs, and their sex lives.

Here, Kerry takes the imperial presidency another step forward.

Kerry tells Republicans: you cannot modify Iran-U.S. nuclear deal

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Republicans who control Congress on Wednesday they would not be able to modify any nuclear agreement struck between the United States and Iran.

Kerry said he responded with "utter disbelief" to an open letter to Iran on Monday signed only by Republican senators that said any deal would only last as long as U.S. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, remains in office.

"When it says that Congress could actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time is flat wrong," Kerry, who has been negotiating a deal to rein in Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

"You don't have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of a country."

Put that broadly, this is a breathtaking nullification of the constitutional assignment of the treaty-making power to the senate.

Asserting that not every agreement needs to be enshrined in a treaty is one thing.

Asserting all subsequent presidents are bound to comply with such an agreement is lunatic.

Later presidents might abide such an agreement but there is no impediment in the constitution or the law to their declining to do so.

Kerry: Even a Republican president won’t undo Iran nuclear deal

We may hope Kerry is right about that but there is no guarantee.

And he may well be right about the practical impediments to a Republican successor of Obama simply rejecting an executive agreement with Iran about nukes, if he and O can get one made.

But whether it would be prudent is quite a different question from whether it would be within the new executive's power.

And asserting the executive can make whatever agreements it likes with foreign powers and avoid the need for senate agreement by simply not bothering to submit the deal to the senate for confirmation pretty much deprives of all point the constitutional assignment of the treaty-making power to that body.

The constitution is also totally silent on the alleged inherent power of the presidency to make executive agreements at all, of any kind.

Weigh that when you consider who is on more solid constitutional ground, here.

PS and by the way.

The constitution is notoriously silent on the matter of abrogating a treaty as well as the conditions under which the US is no longer bound by the terms of an existing treaty.

It is likewise silent on abrogation of or release from executive agreements, which is no surprise since it has nothing at all to say about such things, their alleged constitutionality being pure invisible ink.