The Presidency and the Iran Accord -Constitutional Day Lesson Ideas

September 17 is Constitution Day recognizing the day the United States Constitution was signed in 1787. The date has only been officially recognized since 2004 and is primarily observed in schools with special Constitution related social studies lessons. Lesson material for teacher with activities for students are available at a number of websites including the National Constitution Center and the National Archives.

Many Constitution Day lessons tend to be celebratory or silly. Many of you remember the "Schoolhouse Rocks" Constitution video and "How a Bill Becomes a Law" from when you were trapped in school.

I propose Constitution Day be used to examine crucial current events issues that raise important constitutional questions. Given heated debate taking place in the United States over the power of the Presidency and the Iran nuclear accord, it is an ideal topic for secondary school classrooms on Constitution Day.

These companion lessons are designed to maximize student discussion and the examination of policies supported by evidence, two qualities largely missing in partisan public fighting over the Iran nuclear accord. I think teachers should share their views and join with students evaluating evidence as part of democratic discourse as long as a teacher's comments do not close down discussion.

Lesson 1 requires students to compare and evaluate two pairs of conflicting views on the Iran Accord, decide on what additional information they need to reach a decision about which position, if any, to support, research the information, and then discuss policy options. Although Congressional Republicans failed to pass legislation blocking the accord, they pledge to find other ways to undermine the agreement.

An abbreviated version of the lesson can be done in one day based on the quotes alone, but research, writing formal statements, and having a full-scale "Congressional" debate examining the options and reaching some kind of consensus will require more extended time. Lesson 2 focuses more on the Constitutional question of whether President Obama has the executive authority to make this agreement without formal Congressional advice and consent.

These lessons are document-based and aligned with both Common Core readings standards and National Council for the Social Studies citizenship frameworks.

Spoiler Alert: I agree with President Obama that "Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." I also believe that this accord is a first step toward developing working ties between Iran and the United States' western allies that can help stabilize the entire Middle East. I do not believe this would be possible without Iranian-American cooperation. I prefer formal Congressional approval of the Iran nuclear accord but do not think any controversial measure is going to get a fair hearing as both mainstream political parties position themselves for the 2016 Presidential and Congressional elections.

Lesson 1 Aim: Should the United States accept the agreement negotiated with Iran to limit its nuclear capacity in exchange for lifting economic sanctions?

Do Now: The passage below is from the United States Department of State website explaining current international sanctions against Iran because of a nuclear arms program that violates nuclear non-proliferation agreements. Tehran is the capital city of Iran. Read the passage carefully and answer questions 1-4.
Source: http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/index.htm

Questions
1. As used in these passages, what is meant by "sanctions"?
2. According to section A, why did the United States and other countries place "sanctions" on Iran?
3. What are the goals of the "sanctions"?
4. According to section D, under what conditions would the "sanctions" against Iran be lifted?

A. In response to Iran's continued illicit nuclear activities, the United States and other countries have imposed unprecedented sanctions to censure Iran and prevent its further progress in prohibited nuclear activities, as well as to persuade Tehran to address the international community's concerns about its nuclear program.

B. Acting both through the United Nations Security Council and regional or national authorities, the United States, the member states of the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, and others have put in place a strong, inter-locking matrix of sanctions measures relating to Iran's nuclear, missile, energy, shipping, transportation, and financial sectors.

C. These measures are designed:
(1) to block the transfer of weapons, components, technology, and dual-use items to Iran's prohibited nuclear and missile programs;
(2) to target select sectors of the Iranian economy relevant to its proliferation activities; and
(3) to induce Iran to engage constructively, through discussions with the United States, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Russia . . . to fulfill its nonproliferation obligations.

D. These nations have made clear that Iran's full compliance with its international nuclear obligations would open the door to its receiving treatment as a normal non-nuclear-weapon state under The Nonproliferation Treaty and sanctions being lifted.

Motivation: There currently is intense political debate in the United States over the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration to remove sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran's commitment to limit its nuclear capacity. In order to arrive at a position either supporting or opposing the agreement, what would you want to know?

Class Activity: Working in teams, examine the four statements on the Iran nuclear accord, answer questions 1-6, and prepare to discuss your views on the Iran nuclear accord with the class.

Questions
1. Which statement presents the strongest argument in support of the accords? Explain.
2. Which statement presents the strongest argument against the accords? Explain.
3. Which position on the accords do you find most convincing? Why?
4. Based on the arguments presented in these four statements, what further information do you want to know about the Iran nuclear accord?
5. Based on the arguments presented in these four statements, do you support or oppose the Iran nuclear accord? Why?
6. Is your support or opposition with or without reservations? Explain.

A. Letter to President Obama signed by 29 leading U.S. scientists including 6 Nobel laureates.

"As scientists and engineers with understanding of the physics and technology of nuclear power and of nuclear weapons, we congratulate you and your team on the successful completion of the negotiations in Vienna. We consider that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future non-proliferation agreements. This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework. It limits the level of enrichment of the uranium that Iran can produce, the amount of enriched uranium it can stockpile, and the number and kinds of centrifuges it can develop and operate. The agreement bans reconversion and reprocessing of reactor fuel, it requires Iran to redesign its Arak research reactor to produce far less plutonium than the original design, and specifies that spent fuel must be shipped out of the country without the plutonium being separated and before any significant quantity can be accumulated. A key result of these restrictions is that it would take Iran many months to enrich uranium for a weapon . . . Concerns about clandestine activities in Iran are greatly mitigated by the dispute resolution mechanism built into the agreement. The 24-day cap on any delay to access is unprecedented, and will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern: clandestine enrichment, construction of reprocessing or reconversion facilities, and implosion tests using uranium . . . [W]e find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely under the NPT and its Additional Protocol. On the other hand, we do believe that it would be valuable to strengthen these durable international institutions . . . [W]e congratulate you and your team on negotiating a technically sound, stringent and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and provides a basis for further initiatives to raise the barriers to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and around the globe."

B. Secretary of State Kerry Defends Iran Nuclear Deal Before Skeptical Senate

"[U]nder the terms of this agreement, Iran has agreed now to remove 98 percent of its stockpile voluntarily. They're going to destroy 98 percent of their stockpile of enriched uranium. They're going to dismantle two-thirds of their installed centrifuges, and they're going to take out the existing core of an existing heavy water reactor and fill it with concrete. Iran has agreed to refrain from producing or acquiring highly-enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium for at least 15 years . . . [I]f Iran fails to comply, we will know it, and we will know it quickly, and we will be able to respond accordingly by reinstituting sanctions all the way up to the most draconian options that we have today. None of them are off the table at any point in time . . . The alternative to the deal that we have reached is not . . . a "better deal," some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation. That is a fantasy, plain and simple . . . The choice we face is between an agreement that will ensure Iran's nuclear program is limited, rigorously scrutinized, and wholly peaceful, or no deal at all. That's the choice."

C. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat-New York) Statement on the Iran Nuclear Accord

"I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval . . . In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not "anywhere, anytime"; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling . . . It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections . . .
Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program . . . To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it . . . For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are "state sponsors of terrorism." Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East . . . Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted . . . threatening the United States . . . I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power."

D. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner (Republican-Ohio) Statement on the Iran Nuclear Accord

"At the outset of these talks, the Obama administration said it would secure an agreement that affirmed Iran does not have a right to enrich and permanently dismantles the infrastructure of its nuclear programs. It said that sanctions would not be lifted until Iran met concrete, verifiable standards. And if these terms were not met, the president promised he would walk away. The American people and our allies were counting on President Obama to keep his word. Instead, the President has abandoned his own goals. His 'deal' will hand Iran billions in sanctions relief while giving it time and space to reach a break-out threshold to produce a nuclear bomb - all without cheating. Instead of making the world less dangerous, this 'deal' will only embolden Iran - the world's largest sponsor of terror - by helping stabilize and legitimize its regime as it spreads even more violence and instability in the region. Instead of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, this deal is likely to fuel a nuclear arms race around the world."

Summary Question: Based on the positions presented in these passages and classroom discussion, what is your position on the proposed Iran nuclear accord? Explain.

Lesson 2 Aim: Does the Iran nuclear accord violate Constitutional checks and balances?

Do Now: Read the excerpt from the United States Constitution and Federalist Paper #75 and answer questions 1-4.

Questions
1. Which part of the United States Constitution discusses treaties?
2. What is the procedure for approving treaties?
3. According to Hamilton, who is chiefly responsible for the "management of foreign negotiations"?
4. What is Hamilton's view on the role of the "legislative body" in this process?

A. "The 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." - United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

B. "The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the Executive as the most fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #75, 1788

Motivation: A number of political cartoons question President Obama's allegiance to Constitutional principles. Examine and discuss one cartoon. https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/new-political-cartoon-perfectly-illustrates-what-obama-thinks-about-upholding-the-constitution

Activity 1: Working in teams, read the passage and answer questions 1-4. It is adapted from the web page of Senator Bob Corker (Republican-Tennessee), one of the initial sponsors of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

Questions
1. Why does President Obama believe the Iran Nuclear Accord does not have to be proved by a 2/3 vote of the United States Senate?
2. What did Congress and the President agree to with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act?
3. What can happen if Congress disagrees with the Iran Nuclear Accord?
4. In your opinion, has President Obama satisfied constitutional guidelines with the Iran Nuclear Accord? Explain.

"According to President Obama, the Iran nuclear accord is not a treaty that must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the United States Senate but an "executive agreement" that does not require Congressional approval. In May 2015, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act passed the Senate 98 to 1 and the House of Representatives 400 to 25 and was signed by President Barak Obama. The law requires President Obama to submit to Congress the agreement and all related documents, including specifics on verification and compliance. This ensures Congress will get to see the entire deal and make an independent judgment on its merits. The law prohibits the President from waiving statutory [legal] sanctions while Congress reviews the agreement . . . The law gives Congress the opportunity to enact a joint resolution of disapproval that would permanently prevent the President from waiving or suspending the congressional sanctions, but the President has the power to veto this resolution . . . The law holds Iran accountable by requiring the President to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the agreement. If Iran violates the terms of the deal, the law provides an expedited process for Congress to rapidly restore its sanctions. The law also includes unprecedented reporting requirements on Iran's direct and indirect support for terrorism, human rights violations, and ballistic missile testing."

Activity 2: Constitutional scholars disagree on the Constitutionality of the Iran Nuclear Accord if it is not approved by the United States Senate under its advice and consent mandate. Working in teams examine the statements by Rivkin and Casey and Ramsey. Based on material covered earlier in this lesson, your knowledge of United States history and the Constitution, and these arguments, prepare a 500-word statement either arguing that the Iran Nuclear Accord is constitutional or unconstitutional. Be prepared to discuss your views with the class.

A. The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal
by David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2015

"The Iranian nuclear agreement announced on July 14 is unconstitutional, violates international law and features commitments that President Obama could not lawfully make. However, because of the way the deal was pushed through, the states may be able to derail it by enacting their own Iran sanctions legislation. President Obama executed the nuclear deal as an executive agreement, not as a treaty. While presidents have used executive agreements to arrange less-important or temporary matters, significant international obligations have always been established through treaties, which require Senate consent by a two-thirds majority. The Constitution's division of the treaty-making power between the president and Senate ensured that all major U.S. international undertakings enjoyed broad domestic support. It also enabled the states to make their voices heard through senators when considering treaties--which are constitutionally the "supreme law of the land" and pre-empt state laws. The Obama administration had help in its end-run around the Constitution. Instead of insisting on compliance with the Senate's treaty-making prerogatives, Congress enacted the Iran Nuclear Agreement Act of 2015. Known as Corker-Cardin, it surrenders on the constitutional requirement that the president obtain a Senate supermajority to go forward with a major international agreement. Instead, the act effectively requires a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress to block elements of the Iran deal related to U.S. sanctions relief. The act doesn't require congressional approval for the agreement as a whole."

B. The Iran Negotiations and Non-Binding Agreements
by Michael Ramsey

"[A] non-binding agreement (otherwise known as a "political commitment") is not a treaty. The core characteristic of a treaty in eighteenth-century international law (as today) was that it was binding. Article II, Section 2 does not preclude non-binding agreements. Nor does anything else in the Constitution directly mention them . . . Article II, Section 1 vests the President with "executive power" . . . In the eighteenth century "executive" power included diplomatic power (and generally power over interactions with foreign nations). Some of this "executive" power is taken away from the U.S. chief executive -- e.g., war power (to Congress) and treaty making power (shared with the Senate). But other executive foreign affairs powers, not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, remain part of the President's Article II, Section 1 power. Non-binding agreements (I might prefer to call them "diplomatic arrangements") are part of that power."

Summary Question: Does the Iran nuclear accord violate Constitutional checks and balances?

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.