Barack Obama has his "historic" nuclear deal with Iran. But what's it actually for? I ask in my latest National Post column.

Reader Rob Graham asked, on Twitter, the following question:

@thejohnrobson as an historian, does Obama's Iran agreement require ratification by Senate under Treaty article?

I didn't think my answer would fit inside 140 characters, so instead I wrote this:

The United States Constitution (Article II Section 2) empowers the president “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”. But it was envisioned that treaties would be comparatively rare and deal with major matters. As the United States became more deeply enmeshed in global affairs after World War II, it became increasingly common for the president to conclude not “treaties” but “executive agreements”, on matters great and small, in enormous numbers, that were not put before the Senate and came into effect anyway.

The courts have generally accepted these agreements with the requirement that there be some evidence of Congressional acquiescence. And in any case almost any significant agreement will at some point require enabling legislation, including funding to execute its provisions. So Congress can block things it really dislikes. Thus sensible presidents seek Congressional approval before major initiatives whatever they are formally called, knowing the American legislature still does wield the power of the purse, including LBJ’s infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution before committing major ground forces to the never formally declared war in Vietnam.

The problem is that by signing an agreement and announcing it the President can commit the prestige of the nation in ways that tends to trap Congress. The same is true of the war-making power, as dissident Congressmen noted in the runup to the Mexican-American war when President Tyler promised Texas military protection while the treaty of annexation was before the Senate in 1844, and then President Polk sent troops to occupy disputed territory in 1846. It is because of this capacity that parties that do not occupy the White House tend to be very critical of excessive executive discretion in foreign affairs, and those that occupy it tend to be enthusiastic about it. Joe Biden, for instance, was scathing on a proposed strategic arms reduction deal with Russia by executive agreement. But back then he was a Democratic Senator facing a Republican President. When a group of Senators sent a letter to Iran warning it that the Senate would have to approve any deal on Teheran’s nuclear program, the same Biden warned that “Around the world, America's influence depends on its ability to honor its commitments," and so “as the authors of this letter must know, the vast majority of our international commitments take effect without congressional approval."

In the case of the Iranian deal, there is the added complication that once President Obama agrees to it, other nations will start carrying out its provisions regardless of what Congress tries to do in the coming months, and he has broad legislative authority to waive various sanctions. So he has really presented the Senate, and the House with a fait accompli. And promised, I might note, to veto any legislation from Congress seeking to block the agreement; he seems much keener to make nice with foreign despots than with elected American Congresspersons.

In my latest National Post column I argue that Asteroid Day is one trendy cause worth embracing... while we still can.

In my latest video for The Rebel, I explain how the outbreak of the Korean War on June 25, 1950, was the result of the US and Canada deliberately ignoring the lessons of the outbreak of WW2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg3XOdQpEZY

The 800^th anniversary of Magna Carta is just 12 days away now. June 15 2015 is Magna Carta Day. Well, not in Ontario. A private members’ bill from Julia Monro (MPP York Simcoe) to make June 15 officially Magna Carta Day in this province is bottled up in committee and will likely languish if not die there since the legislature will rise on June 4 and won’t sit again until Sept. 14. They must be tired or something. Technically committees can meet in between so the bill could get reported out. But Third Reading must wait until fall if it ever happens.

Now I realize that private members’ bills rarely pass and it’s generally a lengthy process for those that do. Arguably it could go faster as a rule. But certainly when you’re looking at the 800^th anniversary of what is widely agreed to be one of the most important events in our entire history, MPPs across party lines could have moved this particular bill along faster given that it was first introduced on July 24 of last year. Assuming they intend to move it at all.

On the plus side, we can celebrate Magna Carta even without the politicians.

In the National Post I ask why so many Canadian museums seem to belong in a museum. Where's our enthusiasm for our history?

My latest IRPP post notes the continuing slide of Barack Obama into self-inflicted irrelevance.

The appointed president of the European Commission, a certain Jean-Claude Juncker, has just warned that if Greece leaves the Euro zone "we would put ourselves at risk because some, notably in the Anglo Saxon world, would try everything to deconstruct the euro area piece by piece, little by little." A spokesperson later clarified that when he said "Anglo Saxon world" he probably didn't mean the British personally so much as the loathsome "markets and speculators" one naturally associates with the wretched English-speakers of this world. A lovely thought phrased with exquisite tact. But why is it a warning? It strikes me as high time someone did it.