Kombiguy wrote:
Wrong on both counts. The letter merely points out that a future president can do what Obama himself has done; that is, modify agreements made by past presidents. It also points out that the President isn't the only branch that has a say in foreign affairs.
Secondly, modifying past executive agreements is not a violation of international law. And if you maintain it is, then where is the outcry about Obama doing it?
Third, the notion of "international law" is somewhat silly, anyway. Law, without a means to enforce it, is only an "ought," not a "must."
Wrong on both counts. The letter merely points out... (
show quote)
what are your suggestions to counter the other countries involved.