Iran nuclear deal: European nations 'siding with ayatollahs' - Pompeo

[Nostra]

If nobody signs an agreement, how is it a treaty?

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

A treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate and it becomes US law.

And how does that make any effective difference?

The question of whether a president can withdraw from a treaty without the consent of the Senate has never been tested in the courts but he certainly can withdraw from an executive agreement.

The question is nonjusticiable according to Goldwater v Carter.

Many presidents have unilaterally withdrawn from a treaty without consent of the senate. Especially this one.

As I said, the question has never been tested in court. I wonder if this was an oversight by the framers of the Constitution. Since the Constitution state a ratified treaty has the status of law and laws cannot be changed without the consent of Congress, it seems logical that withdrawal from a ratified treaty should require the approval of the Senate. In any case, Obama didn't try to make it a treaty because he didn't want an extended debate and because he knew it would never be ratified. Since both Kerry and Obama admitted there were secret side agreements made with Iran that they refused to reveal to Congress, and extended debate on the agreement would probably have doomed it.

But it has been tested in court, and that test came back “figure it out for yourself”. There is no judicial remedy.

I agree with you that it seems logical, but it’s not explicitly stated in the constitution. An amendment would settle the issue, but for now presidents can and do withdraw unilaterally from treaties.

So was it an oversight by the framers of the Constitution or did they intend to give the President more power over foreign relations? Perhaps they never realized future presidents would be able to entirely bypass Congress and make executive agreements so just the exercise of a Senate debate would weed out any bad treaty ideas. That would certainly have been the case with JCPOA. As soon as Amazon delivers my new time machine I am going to go back and ask them.

I have opinions on overly relying on the founder's intent. There are things they just didn't address, logically so, they couldn't address everything.

But the point is that the question of executive withdrawing from treaties without approval has been addressed in the courts and they've decided it is not a question for the court to answer.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

A treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate and it becomes US law.

And how does that make any effective difference?

The question of whether a president can withdraw from a treaty without the consent of the Senate has never been tested in the courts but he certainly can withdraw from an executive agreement.

The question is nonjusticiable according to Goldwater v Carter.

Many presidents have unilaterally withdrawn from a treaty without consent of the senate. Especially this one.

As I said, the question has never been tested in court. I wonder if this was an oversight by the framers of the Constitution. Since the Constitution state a ratified treaty has the status of law and laws cannot be changed without the consent of Congress, it seems logical that withdrawal from a ratified treaty should require the approval of the Senate. In any case, Obama didn't try to make it a treaty because he didn't want an extended debate and because he knew it would never be ratified. Since both Kerry and Obama admitted there were secret side agreements made with Iran that they refused to reveal to Congress, and extended debate on the agreement would probably have doomed it.

But it has been tested in court, and that test came back “figure it out for yourself”. There is no judicial remedy.

I agree with you that it seems logical, but it’s not explicitly stated in the constitution. An amendment would settle the issue, but for now presidents can and do withdraw unilaterally from treaties.

So was it an oversight by the framers of the Constitution or did they intend to give the President more power over foreign relations? Perhaps they never realized future presidents would be able to entirely bypass Congress and make executive agreements so just the exercise of a Senate debate would weed out any bad treaty ideas. That would certainly have been the case with JCPOA. As soon as Amazon delivers my new time machine I am going to go back and ask them.

I have opinions on overly relying on the founder's intent. There are things they just didn't address, logically so, they couldn't address everything.

But the point is that the question of executive withdrawing from treaties without approval has been addressed in the courts and they've decided it is not a question for the court to answer.

The question has been asked in the court but the court declined to answer it. That doesn't mean another court won't.

 

[pknopp]

They are tired of our crap.

Thats pretty stupid of the euros

No, not really. It was stupid of us. How bad is it when Europe turns on you to side with Iran? The world understands what our wars are all about. It isn't about what we claim.

Well then, maybe next time Europe calls the USA to save their ass in a war we will let it go to voice mail.

And them likewise.

I'll make that deal. Move all our troops out of Europe and spend the money here. Let them deal with Putin on their own and see how it works out.

Great but it isn't going to happen. There is too much money for the few in war and those few always get their way.

 

[mudwhistle]

Iran nuclear deal: European nations 'siding with ayatollahs' - Pompeo

His comments came after allies said the US could not trigger so-called "snapback" sanctions on Iran.

www.bbc.co.uk

Mike Pompeo's assertion that Washington's key European allies are "siding with the ayatollahs" offers a test case of the failures of President Trump's approach towards Iran and of his foreign policy in general.

Foreign policy is about defining objectives; determining the means of getting there and, crucially, carrying other nations along with you. On Iran, the US has failed on every count.

Bluster might work among the less educated of his base but diplomacy is grown up stuff. If you cant take people with you then you stand alone and impotent. The world needs leadership and the US is playing golf.

I would imagine that most of Americas allies are waiting for November and the return of sanity to the world stage.

OH you're so smart cuz you bought into the UN

 

[Dragonlady]

Iran nuclear deal: European nations 'siding with ayatollahs' - Pompeo

His comments came after allies said the US could not trigger so-called "snapback" sanctions on Iran.

www.bbc.co.uk

Mike Pompeo's assertion that Washington's key European allies are "siding with the ayatollahs" offers a test case of the failures of President Trump's approach towards Iran and of his foreign policy in general.

Foreign policy is about defining objectives; determining the means of getting there and, crucially, carrying other nations along with you. On Iran, the US has failed on every count.

Bluster might work among the less educated of his base but diplomacy is grown up stuff. If you cant take people with you then you stand alone and impotent. The world needs leadership and the US is playing golf.

I would imagine that most of Americas allies are waiting for November and the return of sanity to the world stage.

Canadians really do feel like we're living above a meth lab run by a bunch of stoners who forget to set timers when it's time to turn off the propane. We're just waiting for the explosion.

In the meantime, everyone is slowly returning to work, and assessing the damage. There's a couple of family owned businesses that won't be back. The owner of one local lunch counter, who is my age, is enjoying summer in his garden, and is putting his place up for sale. The local yoga studio is closed, and doesn't look like it's re-opening. My youngest, who is a certified yoga instructor, said that no one is wanting to go to classes now. There is a big market for virtual classes, or private lessons via Zoom.

My grandkids' birthday party is tomorrow. I'm going to skip the 20 young adults/children festivities, even if all the fun is outdoors. This is "birthday week". My granddaughter's birthday was the 16th. My son's birthday is today. And my grandson's birthday is tomorrow. Also my cat's birthday was on the 17th, but she didn't complain that I forgot it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Iran nuclear deal: European nations 'siding with ayatollahs' - Pompeo

His comments came after allies said the US could not trigger so-called "snapback" sanctions on Iran.

www.bbc.co.uk

Mike Pompeo's assertion that Washington's key European allies are "siding with the ayatollahs" offers a test case of the failures of President Trump's approach towards Iran and of his foreign policy in general.

Foreign policy is about defining objectives; determining the means of getting there and, crucially, carrying other nations along with you. On Iran, the US has failed on every count.

Bluster might work among the less educated of his base but diplomacy is grown up stuff. If you cant take people with you then you stand alone and impotent. The world needs leadership and the US is playing golf.

I would imagine that most of Americas allies are waiting for November and the return of sanity to the world stage.

Canadians really do feel like we're living above a meth lab run by a bunch of stoners who forget to set timers when it's time to turn off the propane. We're just waiting for the explosion.

In the meantime, everyone is slowly returning to work, and assessing the damage. There's a couple of family owned businesses that won't be back. The owner of one local lunch counter, who is my age, is enjoying summer in his garden, and is putting his place up for sale. The local yoga studio is closed, and doesn't look like it's re-opening. My youngest, who is a certified yoga instructor, said that no one is wanting to go to classes now. There is a big market for virtual classes, or private lessons via Zoom.

My grandkids' birthday party is tomorrow. I'm going to skip the 20 young adults/children festivities, even if all the fun is outdoors. This is "birthday week". My granddaughter's birthday was the 16th. My son's birthday is today. And my grandson's birthday is tomorrow. Also my cat's birthday was on the 17th, but she didn't complain that I forgot it.

Sounds great. We had a family meal last night. First time we were all together since xmas day. Where does the time go ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Trump breaking the Iran deal was 100% about blowing up one of President Obama's accomplishments.

How did America benefit from giving the illegitimate Mullahs of Iran pallets full of cash money?

It is not like the US gave them cash, it was more of unfreezing Iranian money that was in western banks. It belong to them but they just could not get their money while it was frozen do to the sanctions

Almost $1.973 billion of Iran's assets are frozen in the US alone. Yeah the banks love that. 50 million in real estate in the US belong to Iran.

The money was theirs and you cannot hold it forever. Especially when your making money on their assets.

The agreement was between the previous Iranian government which the present government overthrew and the US has not had diplomatic relations with the present government so there is not basis for claiming we owed the ayatollahs anything. Moreover, we knew much of that money would go to support Iran's wars across the ME and Iran's support for terrorism around the world. That alone should have overridden any other concerns since it made the US effectively a state sponsor of terrorism.

The current President of Iran was elected by 57% of those who voted. He is more legit than Trump. And he represents the Iranian people.

 

[Markle]

Trump breaking the Iran deal was 100% about blowing up one of President Obama's accomplishments.

How did America benefit from giving the illegitimate Mullahs of Iran pallets full of cash money?

It was their money.

What was the money being held for and what was it used for today? Paying terrorists, how is that good for the world?

 

[Markle]

The current President of Iran was elected by 57% of those who voted. He is more legit than Trump. And he represents the Iranian people.

 

[Markle]

Except there's no evidence the Mullahs were building nukes. The IAEA said that Iran was in compliance and is STILL complying.

Here's the thing. If Iran feels under threat by the US, then it's actually in their interest to build nukes. Nukes are the automatic "Don't fuck with me" card. Just look how deferential we are to North Korea because that bankrupt little country has a 1950's grade nuke that probably wouldn't even fit on one of their malfunctioning missiles.

 

[Markle]

Again, the Iranians complied with the treaty, they complied with inspections, and teh billions we've spent on intelligence didn't fine one shred of proof they violated the treaty.

When you have an "agreement" with holes in it the size of a small planet, it's not worth very much, is it? When it is exactly what you demanded of failed former President Barack Hussein Obama, it's pretty easy to comply with too.

 

[Markle]

Yet, as the IAEA and european inspectors have proven, Iran isn't even thinking about making a nuclear weapon.

Case closed.

 

[Markle]

The Soviet Union (USSR) with with the US has dozens of treaties, from SALT to START, are still fully enforceable against the Russian Federation, which was never a signatory. The new government inherits the obligations of the old government.

Just like if Biden gets elected, he is obligated to the treaties that Trump made.

Even though it's a whole new US government.

That's either foolish or you have reached a new high in desperation.

Comparing the collapse of the Soviet Union with the change in administrations here in the US is laughable.

Treaties carry over from one administration because they have been put before our legislature for approval. As you know, that never happened, plus Obama had secret agreements that we have never learned in full.

Grow up!

 

[Markle]

\
So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

It's a treaty under international law, and Geneva article 18

 

[Markle]

So what is effective difference? [between an executive order and a treaty]

 

[Markle]

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

Either you're a mindless Troll or you're just being facetious and playing.

 

[Markle]

Treaty Clause
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2
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....

The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison’s terms, a “partial agency” in the president’s foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the “people,” no role in the process.

Another reason for involving both president and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”

The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers’ insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.

www.heritage.org

 

[JoeB131]

Again, since Barry Hussein got rolled by the Mullahs on the world stage and several military sites are off limits to any inspections, we don't know jack shit about their nuke program.

And it wasn't a treaty, stupid. It was an Executive Order.

Actually, no, it was a treaty... Congress gave Obama the authority to negotiate with the Iranians and the five other signatories.

Again, even Tillerson and Mattis had to concede the Iranians were in compliance. this was a good treaty.

 

[JoeB131]

If nobody signs an agreement, how is it a treaty?

This treaty was signed by Iran, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, as well as the United States.