In addition to whether we can trust Iran to honor a nuclear weapons agreement, there is another, vital question facing us: a Constitutional separation-of-powers question.
Should such an agreement take the form of a treaty or an executive agreement? Throughout our history, maintaining the separation of powers has been an abiding Constitutional concern.
Political power is a dangerous commodity, so we divide it into safe quantities that are then placed into separate hands. That is the theory of separation of powers. But where do we draw the line between legislative and executive power?
The treaty-making power is tamed by requiring the President to share it with the Senate. But,? as chief executive, Presidents also make executive agreements with other nations' executives, and they do not require Senate approval. In fact, Presidents make hundreds more executive agreements than treaties.
Theoretically, major commitments must be made through treaties, while lesser commitments can constitute executive agreements. But which is this nuclear weapons agreement? Treaty? Executive agreement? Either the President can do this on his own, or the Constitutional separation of powers is threatened.
Now, we are all weary of the endless squabbling in Washington over petty matters. But pause and reflect for a moment. Sometimes a vital issue breaks out right in the middle of a petty squabble. This is one of those times.
I'm Bob Evans, and that's my perspective.
