From the above, one would think you actually had verifiable sources to back up your claims; but you have a very well known aversion to (and derision of) links to substantiate claims; but, I think, your lack of substantiating links is not due to any aversion to links in general but, rather, to an aversion to the fact that the claims you made above aren't really true...
Let's look at you 'four sources":
1. Dealing with you as a source, I can say I wouldn't buy a used car from you...
2. Article II of the US Constitution: Somehow, I can't find anything in the text of the Article 11 any reference specially naming Carter as 'giving away' the Panama Canal; maybe you are trying to say Carter violated the provisions of Article 11 in the process of making the Canal Treaty; however, it seems all his actions were in line with and in conformity with the provisions of Article 11; if you have any real evidence of Carter violating Article 11, please be forthcoming; and it would be appreciated if you would kindly provide links to back up you claim...
3 & "4". I had to combine these two "sources" because, oddly, they are one and the same; the Office of the Historian is of the State Department; either your math sucks and there are only three (3) distinct "sources" in your claim or you were trying to pad your claim hoping no one would check you on them (surprise!); when I did check this so-called source, I realized why you did bother (or want to) supply a link; so for every one else, here's the link:
The Panama Canal and the Torrijos-Carter Treaties --
https://history.state.gov/milestones...0/panama-canal
Now, according to your claim, this source would also back up your claim of Carter 'giving away' the Canal; well, lets see...what, exactly, is the opening line of the Office of the Historian's article on the Carter treaty efforts...?...
Wow, the Historian really let Carter have it for 'giving away' the Canal, didn't he/she?...
So, got any more good "sources"...
The actual history of the Canal and the eventual Treaty goes back far before Carter was in office; the efforts to reach an equitable agreement on the Canal began almost as soon as the US signed their first agreement with the Panamanian government in 1903, in the decades since, over the terms of several Presidents before Carter, the US and Panama have tried to hash out the situation; it all came to head in 1963 when Panama became independent of the nation of Colombia and began to assert its own sovereignty; in 1964, the US agreed to let the Panamanian flag to be flown alongside the US flag on the Canal grounds, but a subsequent violent clash caused by US citizens on the Canal led to the Panamanian government breaking off ties with the US; this was a very serious diplomatic black eye for the US and, given the ongoing Cold War with the USSR, gave the Russians plenty of fuel for their propaganda and recruiting efforts; this led to the US seeking, via a new treaty, to reset the terms of the Canal ownership so as to mitigate the impression of a much larger nation, the US, bullying a much smaller nation, Panama; what started in the LBJ administration became the set policy of the US regarding Panama and the Canal; Presidents from both parties and Senate and House leaders from both parties worked to achieve a new treaty; by the time the issue fell into Carter's lap, the issue was pretty much decided and all Carter did was to follow precedent and US policy in reaching a new treaty; he followed all the requirements laid out in the Constitution and presented the Treaty to the Congress for ratification, which was accomplished in 1977...
Here is an article, by someone who was there, as you say, giving some background on the Treaty and the activities surrounding its passage and ratification...
The Panama Canal Treaties were CarterĀ’s biggest foreign policy win --
https://penncapital-star.com/comment...ruce-ledewitz/
Well, at least we now know why you really don't like links..
<O>