It's an agreement made pursuant to the ratification of the UN Charter.
Okay so it’s not the law of the land...thank you.
And we both know your answer is BS, the only reason you’re not calling a treaty a treaty is because doing so we would’ve never seen this treaty pass, even with a dem majority. In what ways is it not a treaty?
The treaty that went into effect when congress ratified it and which gave Obama the authority to enter into the Iran agreement was the UN Charter. It is US law as stipulated by the constitution.
According to Obama's State Department, it is neither a treaty nor an executive agreement, but merely a political agreement and not binding.
President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.
Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.
State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review
