TEHRAN, May 25 (MNA) – An Iranian law student has replied Sen. Cotton’s tweets about Iran’s Zarif calling for a debate over US Constitution, arguing that previous legal cases show Cotton’s claims are baseless.
Following US Senator Tom Cotton’s late April tweets addressing Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif trying to challenge him in a debate over US Constitution, an Iranian student of Law and Jurisprudence has replied the ‘inappropriate, impolite’ comments made by Cotton according to US Constitution and previous legal procedures.
Here is the full text of the letter:
Dear Senator Tom Cotton,
I’ve heard that in your notes, you have insulted Iran’s foreign minister, our nation and history and you have also tried to challenge him with a call for debate; here is the answer to you, but not from a high-ranking diplomat as Mr. Zarif, but rather an Iranian student of jurisprudence and law.
At first, although you used an impolite language, inappropriate for not only a Senator, but even for common people on the streets, we are taught by Islam to begin with greetings and courtesy and avoid insult.
You called for a debate over US Constitution. Yet you forgot to clarify which part of the Constitution you want to discuss; are you going to debate the whole Constitution or only Section 2 of Article II according to which American president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur?”
But, whatever your intention would have been, an answer in regard to Section 2 of Article II shall be an appropriate answer as it is part of a whole that you self-assuredly called for a debate over.
If you are proud of your Constitution for balancing power between the administration and the Congress, and in your letter signed jointly with a number of senators to threaten the nuclear talks you have assumed your Constitution as the most perfect one in the world, I shall remind your misjudgment as the abovementioned section is about international treaties; yet, any possible deal at the end of the talks would be considered an executive order under president’s authority.
Since your legal system is categorized under Common Law and as your constitution has not talked about executive agreements, legal procedures thus shall decide about authorities in this regard.
Well, you must be quite familiar with legal procedures in cases such as “United States vs. Belmont (1936)”, “United States vs. Pink (1941)”or “Dames & Moore vs. Regan (1981)” in which US president – and not the Congress – had the final say in executive deals.
Therefore, legal procedures along with US Constitution deprives not only the Senate but the Congress of any rights to decide about any possible deal with Iran. Now, the question is if you are still challenging for a debate over your own Constitution? A constitution which rejects your claims about constitutional restrictions for US administration and that there would be no obligation for US to continue implementing any deal during next president.
Now, who is right… you or the Constitution?! And this is a question you Mr. Senator should answer.
In regard to other subjects such as oppression, lack of commitment or terrorism you have called for a debate over, I shall shay there is no need for a debate.
We have witnessed oppression in Vietnam, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Afghanistan and Iraq; lack of commitment in Geneva and terror in our country Iran where our nuclear scientists were assassinated.
At the end, I shall invite you to more scrutiny into issues.
Seyed Mohammad Hosseini,
MA student of jurisprudence and law,
Qur’an and Hadith Sciences University, Qom