article_snippet.sent: But while historical precedent suggests the President might indeed have the authority to move forward without Congress, the Obama administration should probably learn another lesson from history: Getting Congress signature might be worth the effort.
article_snippet.sent: True, the fight for congressional approval would be politically bruising and consume a huge amount of energy.
article_snippet.sent: But it would still be a mistake to move forward with the deal as an executive-based agreement rather than obtaining the consent of the legislative branch -- a diplomatic breakthrough of this magnitude would be far more enduring with the imprimatur of Congress.
article_snippet.sent: After all, given the contentious political environment on Capitol Hill, where legislators struggle to pass even a routine budget, the notion that legislators would move on a treaty of this importance seems dubious at best.
article_snippet.sent: Yet there are other examples where even in a contentious congressional environment, presidents successfully pushed for the ratification of treaties that presidents knew would cost presidents important political  capital, and even once the White House exited the struggle bruised and battered, important international treaties endured.
article_snippet.sent: The reality is that the signature of Congress is still worth a lot in American politics -- the ratification process brings legitimacy to a major and controversial agreement and makes the ratification process much more difficult for opponents to attack in the future as some power grab by the President.
article_snippet.sent: Ultimately, the President probably has the right to go the President own way with this, and the President frustration with Congress might create strong incentives for doing so.