- - Wednesday, August 31, 2016

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

It was appropriate that “White House defends Obama evading Senate on Paris climate deal” (Web, Aug. 29) mentions executive orders in the same context as this planned “executive agreement.” President Obama has a clear history of trying to rewrite law by use of executive orders, which in reality are simple policy statements that almost universally include the stock disclaimer that they are not intended to rewrite any law.

The Times should expand on the fact that under our Constitution only Congress can commit the United States to legally binding formal agreements with other nations. Like executive orders, “executive agreements” can only formalize the intended policy of the executive signing them. They remain in force only until changed or formally rescinded by the next “executive.”

The Republican Party should announce now that it intends to uphold our Constitution, clarifying that none of Mr. Obama’s “executive” actions, neither orders nor agreements, carries any commitment binding on the U.S. government beyond expressions of intended “policy” of the president who signed them.

BILL MILLS

Sterling

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide