l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 5:38 PM, Mar 18, 2015 • By DANIEL HALPER
Senator Joe Lieberman, writing in the Wall Street Journal:
As the Obama administration moves closer to a diplomatic agreement with
Iran regarding its nuclear program, a bipartisan group of senators—
including Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and ranking
Democrat Bob Menendez—has put forward legislation that would provide
Congress with a mechanism to review such a deal. The White House has
threatened a veto, arguing that a deal with Iran would be a “nonbinding”
executive agreement and therefore congressional review would represent an
inappropriate intrusion.
Not so. The Constitution and history, not to mention common sense, argue
that it is entirely proper for America’s elected representatives in
Congress to review a far-reaching agreement with a foreign government of
such national-security significance. The president as commander in chief
deserves deference in devising national-security strategy, but Congress has
clear constitutional standing and an institutional prerogative not to be cut
out of the process.
Each of the Constitution’s grants of foreign-policy authority to the
president is checked and balanced by a grant of foreign-policy authority to
Congress. For example, the two most explicit foreign-policy powers the
Constitution gives to the president—selecting ambassadors and making
international treaties—both require Senate consent. |
|
