And now... the winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Energy Independence -- What It Am And What It Ain't by Joshuapundit, and The Conclusion We Dare Not Face by Dr. Sanity. There was actually a four-way......

First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... the winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Energy Independence -- What It Am ...

First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher's Council for this week's vote. Council li...

This is no more binding than any other.

Then that's fine, but the way it is being treated is that it is binding. Consider this:

WASHINGTON - President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.

After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.

By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.

from here.

I'm sorry, but I think you aren't looking at this rationally.

Well would this be the first time Bush tried to do something that was a naked grab for power? No, not by a long shot. Hence it seems reasonable to be pretty suspicious.

p.s. You will probably get fed some rhetoric on the issue, but expect about as much action on congress blocking this as they did on blocking funding on the war.

Now *that* I find very believable.

So the 13K+ other executive agreements were okay, but this one is not? This is no more binding than any other. On day one, the next president could revoke it. I'm sorry, but I think you aren't looking at this rationally.

p.s. You will probably get fed some rhetoric on the issue, but expect about as much action on congress blocking this as they did on blocking funding on the war.

But again, if the democrats are so exercised about this, have congress do something about it.

You are right, it is LONG past due that congress insist the executive do his job.

Given the roughly 9-1 ratio of executive agreements to treaties, I think you are demonstrating an advanced case of BDS.

The key term again is "binding." Bush can make agreement between *himself* and whomever he pleases. He can even make agreements between the Executive branch while it is under his control and whomever.

What he cannot do is to make agreements between the US and anyone else unless he gets the senate to sign off on the matter.

I can make a great argument that the federal government can't subsidize agriculture, restrict guns or abortion, limit political speech, etc. But the reality is that these things do happen.

But there are constitutional arguments for all of those (commerce clause mostly). Now you can argue that those rationales are improper or not in accordance with the original founders intent, but those are matters of interpretation. The constitution EXPLICITLY says what has to happen for a treaty to be made.

Given the roughly 9-1 ratio of executive agreements to treaties, I think you are demonstrating an advanced case of BDS. I can make a great argument that the federal government can't subsidize agriculture, restrict guns or abortion, limit political speech, etc. But the reality is that these things do happen.

But again, if the democrats are so exercised about this, have congress do something about it. Of course we know that won't happen because it would require them to actually do something.

All presidents make decisions that, while not technically binding, put their successors in a box.

Can you think of any that are this transparently useless other than as a partisan bludgeon?

It's not like Clinton invaded Bosnia (something I was not at all a fan of, BTW) in his last month in office.

Really is there any other possible point to this agreement other than to score electoral points? Anything? Any purpose at all beside partisan politics?

If so I don't see it, and unfortunately the selling out of all principle for partisan gain is the defining attribute of the bush administration.

The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority...

Which would be none. He has no constitutional authority to conclude any binding agreement whatsoever, unless he subsequently submits it to the senate.

He can make agreements about what he intends to do, certainly, but that's trivial.

Which would be fine if everybody accepted this and understood it. But really, when the new president washes their hands of Iraq what are the odds that we *won't* hear a chorus of catewauling about betraying america's allies and commitments from the Malkin/RS/LGF/CQ folk?

But them's just the breaks. It goes with the office.

All presidents make decisions that, while not technically binding, put their successors in a box. Bill Clinton's intervention in Bosnia, for example, of the first George Bush's intervention in Somalia. You get to be president for every single day of all four years of your term and make your mark.