Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him i

[Stephanie]

saw this on another site

Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?

SNIP:

US Dept of Treasury: Iran Sanctions ^ | Multiple | Multiple

Posted on Sunday, November 24, 2013 2:59:25 PM by Innovative

H.R. 2194 (111th): Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) The illicit nuclear activities of the Government of Iran, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles and its support for international terrorism, represent a threat to the security of the United States, its strong ally Israel, and other allies of the United States around the world. (2) The United States and other responsible countries have a vital interest in working together to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. (3) The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly called attention to Iran’s illicit nuclear activities and, as a result, the United Nations Security Council has adopted a range of sanctions designed to encourage the Government of Iran to suspend those activities and comply with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (commonly known as the ‘‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’’). (4) The serious and urgent nature of the threat from Iran demands that the United States work together with its allies to do everything possible—diplomatically, politically, and economically—to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

Senate Vote on Passage

Jun 24, 2010 2:54 p.m.

Conference Report Agreed to 99/0

House Vote on Passage

Jun 24, 2010 7:16 p.m.

Passed 408/8

This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on July 1, 2010.


(Excerpt) Read more at treasury.gov ...

H/T FROM
Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?

 

[tyroneweaver]

tea party politics are mostly local. There's no national tea party

 

[Jackson]

Can an Executive Order negate an existing law?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/hr2194.pdf

We need experts to weigh in here.

 

[Clementine]

Executive orders are legit and are generally used when quick action is needed. Obama has made an art of going around congress. He has focused on methods that bypass our system and allow him to make commands without being slowed down by debate and input from congress, and therefore, the people.

There is bipartisan support for continuing sanctions against Iran, which would negate the deal, according to Iranian officials. Obama knew he would not have full support when it came to trusting Iran and funneling over 4 billion dollars to them, based solely on their word. Obama goes around congress when he knows that they won't fully back him on his plans. He has thumbed his nose at the entire country by cutting our representatives out of the decision making process. Can you say 'tyrant?'

 

[Jackson]

H.R. 2194 (111th): Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The illicit nuclear activities of the Government of Iran, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles and its support for international terrorism, represent a threat to the security of the United States, its strong ally Israel, and other allies of the United States around the world.

(2) The United States and other responsible countries have a vital interest in working together to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

(3) The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly called attention to Iran’s illicit nuclear activities and, as a result, the United Nations Security Council has adopted a range of sanctions designed to encourage the Government of Iran to suspend those activities and comply with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (commonly known as the ‘‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’’).

(4) The serious and urgent nature of the threat from Iran demands that the United States work together with its allies to do everything possible—diplomatically, politically, and economically—to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. *

* copied to provide ease in reading

 

[Jackson]

Executive orders are legit and are generally used when quick action is needed. Obama has made an art of going around congress. He has focused on methods that bypass our system and allow him to make commands without being slowed down by debate and input from congress, and therefore, the people.

There is bipartisan support for continuing sanctions against Iran, which would negate the deal, according to Iranian officials. Obama knew he would not have full support when it came to trusting Iran and funneling over 4 billion dollars to them, based solely on their word. Obama goes around congress when he knows that they won't fully back him on his plans. He has thumbed his nose at the entire country by cutting our representatives out of the decision making process. Can you say 'tyrant?'

Would it be possible for Congress to pass a bill to negate the funneling of $4 billion to Iran? Or, have the Congress vote to have the treaty nullified on a vote of No Confidence in the leader? Sounds a little British, doesn't it?

It seems like the only thing the Congress can do is similar to what I just said, but to warn Obama that the next negotiations had better not be similar and pass a law that no Executive order is to be used.

 

[velvtacheeze]

There's not going to be any war on Iran, get over it.

Conservative American and Israeli aggression against Iran is the reason they have a nuclear program anyway. Quit the bluster, the saber rattling, invading Iran's neighbors, placing sanctions on Iran.

No wonder they want a nuclear weapon.

 

[Jackson]

There's not going to be any war on Iran, get over it.

Conservative American and Israeli aggression against Iran is the reason they have a nuclear program anyway. Quit the bluster, the saber rattling, invading Iran's neighbors, placing sanctions on Iran.

No wonder they want a nuclear weapon.

One can tell you know little about the Middle East and less about Iran.

 

[HenryBHough]

There's not going to be any war on Iran, get over it.

Certainly not by a weak-kneed apologist which is wot we got just now. Now whether some other Middle East country decides enough is enough, well that's a pig of a different odor. Maybe NOT Israel when it comes.

 

[Contumacious]

Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?

SNIP:

US Dept of Treasury: Iran Sanctions ^ | Multiple | Multiple

Posted on Sunday, November 24, 2013 2:59:25 PM by Innovative

H.R. 2194 (111th): Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) The illicit nuclear activities of the Government of Iran, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles and its support for international terrorism, represent a threat to the security of the United States, its strong ally Israel, and other allies of the United States around the world.

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

.

 

[velvtacheeze]

There's not going to be any war on Iran, get over it.

Conservative American and Israeli aggression against Iran is the reason they have a nuclear program anyway. Quit the bluster, the saber rattling, invading Iran's neighbors, placing sanctions on Iran.

No wonder they want a nuclear weapon.

One can tell you know little about the Middle East and less about Iran.

The Iraq War was a massive clusterf___, and I see no reason why waging war on Iran would be any different.

Conservatards clearly haven't learned anything from the failed Iraq War debacle.

 

[velvtacheeze]

There's not going to be any war on Iran, get over it.

Certainly not by a weak-kneed apologist which is wot we got just now. Now whether some other Middle East country decides enough is enough, well that's a pig of a different odor. Maybe NOT Israel when it comes.

He went after Osama bin Laden and got him. Right in the heart of a muslim country that has nuclear weapons too. So you can shut up now about Obama being weak in anyway.

Face it, Iran with nuclear weapons is preferable to most Americans than going to war again.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Someone in the real world would have said something, hater dupes...lol

 

[Stephanie]

Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?

SNIP:

US Dept of Treasury: Iran Sanctions ^ | Multiple | Multiple

Posted on Sunday, November 24, 2013 2:59:25 PM by Innovative

H.R. 2194 (111th): Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) The illicit nuclear activities of the Government of Iran, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles and its support for international terrorism, represent a threat to the security of the United States, its strong ally Israel, and other allies of the United States around the world.

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

.

thanks for taking the time to give an answer
I saw it on another site and was curious..

 

[J.E.D]

So now striking a deal with Iran is violating the law? Holy shit, Staph, you are one bitter, hateful person.

 

[Jackson]

So now striking a deal with Iran is violating the law? Holy shit, Staph, you are one bitter, hateful person.

Stephanie is hardly a bitter, hateful person, just a smart one. She, like most of us can see a bad deal when presented with it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

saw this on another site

Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?

SNIP:

US Dept of Treasury: Iran Sanctions ^ | Multiple | Multiple

Posted on Sunday, November 24, 2013 2:59:25 PM by Innovative

H.R. 2194 (111th): Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) The illicit nuclear activities of the Government of Iran, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles and its support for international terrorism, represent a threat to the security of the United States, its strong ally Israel, and other allies of the United States around the world. (2) The United States and other responsible countries have a vital interest in working together to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. (3) The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly called attention to Iran’s illicit nuclear activities and, as a result, the United Nations Security Council has adopted a range of sanctions designed to encourage the Government of Iran to suspend those activities and comply with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (commonly known as the ‘‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’’). (4) The serious and urgent nature of the threat from Iran demands that the United States work together with its allies to do everything possible—diplomatically, politically, and economically—to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

Senate Vote on Passage

Jun 24, 2010 2:54 p.m.

Conference Report Agreed to 99/0

House Vote on Passage

Jun 24, 2010 7:16 p.m.

Passed 408/8

This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on July 1, 2010.


(Excerpt) Read more at treasury.gov ...

H/T FROM
Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?

good question

but tyrannical leaders do not need congress

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

There's not going to be any war on Iran, get over it.

Certainly not by a weak-kneed apologist which is wot we got just now. Now whether some other Middle East country decides enough is enough, well that's a pig of a different odor. Maybe NOT Israel when it comes.

He went after Osama bin Laden and got him. Right in the heart of a muslim country that has nuclear weapons too.

You mean when he violated an ally's air space without notifying them? Besides, we've never seen any proof that Osama was killed. No body. No nothing. Only the word of a non-natural born Citizen never Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.

 

[BlindBoo]

Certainly not by a weak-kneed apologist which is wot we got just now. Now whether some other Middle East country decides enough is enough, well that's a pig of a different odor. Maybe NOT Israel when it comes.

He went after Osama bin Laden and got him. Right in the heart of a muslim country that has nuclear weapons too.

You mean when he violated an ally's air space without notifying them? Besides, we've never seen any proof that Osama was killed. No body. No nothing. Only the word of a non-natural born Citizen never Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

But do I understand you correctly in that you support Pakistan's right to harbor 9-11 terrorists over the United States rights to go after them?

 

[Stephanie]

So now striking a deal with Iran is violating the law? Holy shit, Staph, you are one bitter, hateful person.

Stephanie is hardly a bitter, hateful person, just a smart one. She, like most of us can see a bad deal when presented with it.

thanks dear...you see how just asking a question about Obama makes one bitter and hateful
Obots are sad