Obama warns congress not to stop him on Iran "deal"

[Siete]

An executive agreement is an agreement entered into between a foreign government and the executive branch of the United States. Although the agreement binds the United States with as much force as a treaty, it is not actually as formal as a treaty and does not require Senate approval. Interestingly, executive agreements not authorized by Congress are not binding on subsequent presidents, because they are entered into only by the power of the president that enters into them.

Authority to Enter into an Executive Agreement
The president of the United States possesses the authority to enter into executive agreements. However, this power does not derive from the U.S. Constitution. The power to enter into a particular executive agreement flows from one of two sources, either (1) authorization by Congress or (2) the president's inherent power to manage foreign relations with other countries. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that executive agreements hold the same weight as treaties in its 1937 decision in United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324.

Examples of Executive Agreement Use
Use of executive agreements gained popularity after 1939. In fact, before 1940, presidents made approximately 1,200 executive agreements and signed almost 800 treaties. However, from 1940-1989, the presidents entered into more than 13,000 executive agreements, and still signed only 800 treaties. The following are examples of executive agreements that presidents have entered into.


more?

So you're saying the authority was invented and has no constitutional basis? And you idiots still insist that we a constitutional republic. Between the executive and the courts our Constitution has been destroyed, and people like you are OK with that.

that's exactly what it says, and has nothing to do with the constitution. ..durrrrrr

how F'n stupid are RW's anyway

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, you are the one playing a semantics game by saying the president can negotiate an agreement, which is for all intents and purposes is a treaty and can avoid congressional scrutiny by simply putting another label on it. Sorry bubba i think that violates both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the intended checks and balances put in place by the founders, which were put there just for circumstance like this.

partisan horseshit ^^^^^^^ just like I said

the Vietnam Peace Agreement ... look it up Goober.

 

[Antares]

It is not binding however .

An executive agreement is an agreement entered into between a foreign government and the executive branch of the United States. Although the agreement binds the United States with as much force as a treaty, it is not actually as formal as a treaty and does not require Senate approval. Interestingly, executive agreements not authorized by Congress are not binding on subsequent presidents, because they are entered into only by the power of the president that enters into them.

Authority to Enter into an Executive Agreement
The president of the United States possesses the authority to enter into executive agreements. However, this power does not derive from the U.S. Constitution. The power to enter into a particular executive agreement flows from one of two sources, either (1) authorization by Congress or (2) the president's inherent power to manage foreign relations with other countries. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that executive agreements hold the same weight as treaties in its 1937 decision in United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324.

Examples of Executive Agreement Use
Use of executive agreements gained popularity after 1939. In fact, before 1940, presidents made approximately 1,200 executive agreements and signed almost 800 treaties. However, from 1940-1989, the presidents entered into more than 13,000 executive agreements, and still signed only 800 treaties. The following are examples of executive agreements that presidents have entered into.


more?

So you're saying the authority was invented and has no constitutional basis? And you idiots still insist that we a constitutional republic. Between the executive and the courts our Constitution has been destroyed, and people like you are OK with that.

that's exactly what it says, and has nothing to do with the constitution. ..durrrrrr

how F'n stupid are RW's anyway

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

Well except for that pesky little fact that it isn't legally binding, you are your King can run with it

 

[Siete]

An executive agreement is an agreement entered into between a foreign government and the executive branch of the United States. Although the agreement binds the United States with as much force as a treaty, it is not actually as formal as a treaty and does not require Senate approval. Interestingly, executive agreements not authorized by Congress are not binding on subsequent presidents, because they are entered into only by the power of the president that enters into them.

Authority to Enter into an Executive Agreement
The president of the United States possesses the authority to enter into executive agreements. However, this power does not derive from the U.S. Constitution. The power to enter into a particular executive agreement flows from one of two sources, either (1) authorization by Congress or (2) the president's inherent power to manage foreign relations with other countries. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that executive agreements hold the same weight as treaties in its 1937 decision in United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324.

Examples of Executive Agreement Use
Use of executive agreements gained popularity after 1939. In fact, before 1940, presidents made approximately 1,200 executive agreements and signed almost 800 treaties. However, from 1940-1989, the presidents entered into more than 13,000 executive agreements, and still signed only 800 treaties. The following are examples of executive agreements that presidents have entered into.


more?

So you're saying the authority was invented and has no constitutional basis? And you idiots still insist that we a constitutional republic. Between the executive and the courts our Constitution has been destroyed, and people like you are OK with that.

that's exactly what it says, and has nothing to do with the constitution. ..durrrrrr

how F'n stupid are RW's anyway

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

Well except for that pesky little fact that it isn't legally binding, you are your King can run with it

no King either ... keep trying.

 

[Kondor3]

Hurry, January 20, 2017...

 

[Antares]

So you're saying the authority was invented and has no constitutional basis? And you idiots still insist that we a constitutional republic. Between the executive and the courts our Constitution has been destroyed, and people like you are OK with that.

that's exactly what it says, and has nothing to do with the constitution. ..durrrrrr

how F'n stupid are RW's anyway

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

Well except for that pesky little fact that it isn't legally binding, you are your King can run with it

no King either ... keep trying.

Keep deflecting

 

[SassyIrishLass]

LOL His precious deal never was, Iran played him like a fiddle

 

[OKTexas]

So you're saying the authority was invented and has no constitutional basis? And you idiots still insist that we a constitutional republic. Between the executive and the courts our Constitution has been destroyed, and people like you are OK with that.

that's exactly what it says, and has nothing to do with the constitution. ..durrrrrr

how F'n stupid are RW's anyway

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, you are the one playing a semantics game by saying the president can negotiate an agreement, which is for all intents and purposes is a treaty and can avoid congressional scrutiny by simply putting another label on it. Sorry bubba i think that violates both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the intended checks and balances put in place by the founders, which were put there just for circumstance like this.

partisan horseshit ^^^^^^^ just like I said

the Vietnam Peace Agreement ... look it up Goober.

The Constitution..........look it up gooblet, start with article 2.

 

[Kondor3]

We really must wrest control of the White House away from the Left... this is getting way too dangerous to trust to these bottom-feeders.

 

[Siete]

that's exactly what it says, and has nothing to do with the constitution. ..durrrrrr

how F'n stupid are RW's anyway

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

Well except for that pesky little fact that it isn't legally binding, you are your King can run with it

no King either ... keep trying.

Keep deflecting

oh, I'm sure a LEGALLY BINDING agreement would stop Iran from getting a nuke .. they'd be skeert of being arrested..

LMAO

stuck on legally binding stupid aren't you?

 

[Siete]

that's exactly what it says, and has nothing to do with the constitution. ..durrrrrr

how F'n stupid are RW's anyway

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, you are the one playing a semantics game by saying the president can negotiate an agreement, which is for all intents and purposes is a treaty and can avoid congressional scrutiny by simply putting another label on it. Sorry bubba i think that violates both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the intended checks and balances put in place by the founders, which were put there just for circumstance like this.

partisan horseshit ^^^^^^^ just like I said

the Vietnam Peace Agreement ... look it up Goober.

The Constitution..........look it up gooblet, start with article 2.

an executive agreement was written in the Constitution ?

who knew?

LMAO

you show me gooberboi... not treaty EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT

 

[Siete]

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, you are the one playing a semantics game by saying the president can negotiate an agreement, which is for all intents and purposes is a treaty and can avoid congressional scrutiny by simply putting another label on it. Sorry bubba i think that violates both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the intended checks and balances put in place by the founders, which were put there just for circumstance like this.

partisan horseshit ^^^^^^^ just like I said

the Vietnam Peace Agreement ... look it up Goober.

The Constitution..........look it up gooblet, start with article 2.

an executive agreement was written in the Constitution ?

who knew?

LMAO

you show me gooberboi... not treaty EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT

1039, THE CONSTITUTION SEZ ...

Use of executive agreements gained popularity after 1939. In fact, before 1940, presidents made approximately 1,200 executive agreements.

Framers were old farts like you weren't they?

 

[Antares]

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

Well except for that pesky little fact that it isn't legally binding, you are your King can run with it

no King either ... keep trying.

Keep deflecting

oh, I'm sure a LEGALLY BINDING agreement would stop Iran from getting a nuke .. they'd be skeert of being arrested..

LMAO

stuck on legally binding stupid aren't you?

More deflection you are quite weak 7.

Tell me ...what is the point of an "agreement" if it is not "binding"?

 

[OKTexas]

The only stupidity displayed here is yours, all powers of the federal government are granted by the Constitution, if it's not there they don't have it, that applies to all three branches. If something carries the same wight legally as a treaty, it must be approved by the senate.

really?

a treaty requires Congress
a legislative executive agreement requires congress
an executive agreement gives the POTUS to power to act without Congress

those are FACTS

anything you can say or do otherwise is partisan horseshit. Don't call me stupid when you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, you are the one playing a semantics game by saying the president can negotiate an agreement, which is for all intents and purposes is a treaty and can avoid congressional scrutiny by simply putting another label on it. Sorry bubba i think that violates both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the intended checks and balances put in place by the founders, which were put there just for circumstance like this.

partisan horseshit ^^^^^^^ just like I said

the Vietnam Peace Agreement ... look it up Goober.

The Constitution..........look it up gooblet, start with article 2.

an executive agreement was written in the Constitution ?

who knew?

LMAO

you show me gooberboi... not treaty EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT

Show me the exact wording in the Constitution, where does it mention an executive agreement?

 

[Siete]

here, you can have your asses back. Play catch with each other.
I'm going to watch the Masters.

adios dolts and doltettes

 

[Antares]

here, you can have your asses back. Play catch with each other.
I'm going to watch the Masters.

adios dolts and doltettes

Son you aren't capable of handing anyone their ass

 

[MACAULAY]

here, you can have your asses back. Play catch with each other.
I'm going to watch the Masters.

adios dolts and doltettes
[/QUOTE

_______________________________

This an appropriate exit for one of these Democrat Ass-Clowns who get their talking points from Lord knows where....and are lost as to how to defend them when pressed. Usually, they will call you names late into the night just to have the last word, but this one was so beaten he tossed it in.

21 months to go. How much damage can Obama do?

 

[OKTexas]

here, you can have your asses back. Play catch with each other.
I'm going to watch the Masters.

adios dolts and doltettes

Typical of the left, declare victory while beating a hasty retreat. Good job.