Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
I understand your thinking of whether you consider something smart or stupid, but the process and the authority does not have to make that distinction. The President has the powers of that position and it is balanced by the powers of Congress to have some checks on the Presidential Power.
True.

Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
There is no such check on any Parliament that I'm familiar.
I'll stick strictly to the Canadian situation.

Parliament can toss the Prime Minister out of office after a ten minute debate if it so chooses (and do so WITHOUT "triggering a constitutional crisis) PLUS it can choose anyone it feels like to be the next Prime Minister. This is somewhat stronger than the situation in the US.

Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
I understand we disagree, but that is the system that the US operates.
We do not "disagree" and I acknowledge the system that the US operates under.

Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
The power of a President to decide something you do like is countered by the power of the next President to decide something you don't like--unless enshrined in law.
Just to point out one "minor" difference between "The Canadian System" and "The American System", in Canada


That means that the legislative bodies do NOT have to "approve" any treaty that Canada enters into and the Prime Minister (although, technically, it's the Governor General) has the sole power to bind Canada to treaties.


Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
Following the law is important and if Mr. Obama didn't have support, then the agreement really should not have been made.
That's two different points. The first is whether the President has the power to enter into agreements with other countries which fall short of being "treaties" - and he does. The second is whether Mr. Obama "should" have entered into the agreement in the first place.

The answer to the second point really depends on whether you want to consider "domestic politics" or "actual effect". On the first, he probably SHOULD NOT have entered into the agreement. On the second he probably SHOULD have entered into the agreement.

If we want to flip over to Mr. Trump, then on the first point he probably SHOULD have resiled from the agreement and on the second he probably SHOULD NOT have resiled from the agreement.

This is why they allow betting on horse races.


Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
He did so under the assumption that Mrs Clinton would be his successor, although there would be no obligation on her should she have won.
And, of course, the possibility that the JCPOA would actually accomplish what he was trying to do (eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons program [which it did do] and make it harder for Iran to [secretly] start it up again [which it also did do]) is totally irrelevant.