Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

What the fuck? Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.
WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title...

Give me a link. You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
 
By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.

Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him. He is NOT the king.
You have no bloody idea how most all treaties are negotiated, then.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
 
By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

Did you complain when obama had Cameron calling members of congress to lobby their support for the agreement a few months ago? Thought so.
And which law does that violate?
 
He wanted to bomb Assad but got the CW deal instead.

Really? Facts much?

US accuses Syria of chlorine gas attacks RT News

"The US claims Syrian President Bashar Assad has broken the chemical weapons treaty he agreed to earlier this year, by launching chlorine gas attacks in Syrian villages."

He bombed Gadhaffi under a UN Resolution.

Really? How so? Facts much?

Libya campaign has made UN missions to protect civilians less likely World news The Guardian

"For the manner in which the initial security council resolution was contorted out of all recognition from the protection of civilians to, in effect, outright regime change has left a sour taste in the mouths of powers like China, Russia and India who still hold an absolute conception of state sovereignty.""

The UN resolution did NOT authorize the military campaign obama conducted. Stick to the facts, dimwit.

If Iran signs a treaty and breaks it before his term is up he will bomb them and have the support of UK France and Germany for sure.

Some of us see obama for what he is, a liar and a fraud who would do no such thing.
 
What the fuck? Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.
WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title...


"seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.

If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators are speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
 
By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.

Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him. He is NOT the king.
You have no bloody idea how most all treaties are negotiated, then.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Look, you are nothing but an Obama cocksucker as far as I'm concerned. I don't take any of your posts seriously because you are blinded by your bleeding heart pussy liberal ideology.
 
[QUOTE

Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.[/QUOTE]

Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution....however, as others have stated, the letter was the most moronic, hateful and disloyal act that will cost those 47 right wing senators....dearly.
 
[QUOTE

Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.

Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution....however, as others have stated, the letter was the most moronic, hateful and disloyal act that will cost those 47 right wing senators....dearly.[/QUOTE]

Nope, I don't think so. Just because you liberals are screaming about it and making shit up means nothing to us intelligent Americans who are capable of independent thought and do not worship politicians. :D
 
Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.

Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution....however, as others have stated, the letter was the most moronic, hateful and disloyal act that will cost those 47 right wing senators....dearly.

The "others" who have pointed that babbling bullshit out were merely spouting baseless, partisan hack and vapid opinions. You know, just like you.
 
By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

Did you complain when obama had Cameron calling members of congress to lobby their support for the agreement a few months ago? Thought so.
And which law does that violate?

The senators did not violate any laws either.
 
You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.
WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title...

Give me a link. You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts. :lmao:

Here ya go, forum nut...

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute
 
No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.
WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title...

Give me a link. You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts. :lmao:

Here ya go, forum nut...

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute

The 47 senators are NOT ordinary citizens, dumb arse.
 
A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.

Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.

Look it up, Cleetus.
I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.

Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"
With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.

I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution. :thup:
Where did I do that?
 
No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.
WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title...

Give me a link. You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts. :lmao:

Here ya go, forum nut...

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute

Fauny ^ still can't fathom how that pretty clearly does not apply to US Senators.
 
Did 47 Republican senators break the law in plain sight - CNN.com

"Every time a member of Congress does something in the foreign policy sphere that's at odds with the president, someone trots out the Logan Act," Vladeck said.

And he doesn't believe the Logan Act would hold up in court if, say, the Justice Department decided to indict Cotton -- a move everyone agrees is practically and politically completely untenable.

The Justice Department on Tuesday declined to comment on the Logan Act, but a federal law enforcement official said there's no interest in pursuing anything along these lines.

"This is a political issue, not a legal issue," the official told CNN.

Spiro agreed with Vladeck that there's no chance the senators would face prosecution, and said it's becoming less and less likely the law will ever be used again.

Part of that is because interactions between lawmakers, officials and private citizens with foreign officials have become increasingly common since the Logan Act's 1799 inception.

Remember the law's lone indictment? It happened in 1803.
 
A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.

Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.

Look it up, Cleetus.
I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.

Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"
With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.

I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution. :thup:
Where did I do that?

You didn't. The idiot is merely proclaiming "victory" from nothing. In short. He lies. What else is new?
 
I. “Without authority of the United States”

The text of the Logan Act makes it a crime for citizens to engage in “any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government . . . with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.” As Peter explained yesterday, the Senators’ letter certainly seems to fall within this language. But, critically, the citizen must act “without authority of the United States.” Although most assume that means without authority of the Executive Branch, the Logan Act itself does not specify what this term means, and the State Department told Congress in 1975 that “Nothing in section 953 . . . would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.” That doesn’t mean Members would have immunity under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause; it just means the statute would arguably not apply in the first place. Combined with the rule of lenity and the constitutional concerns identified below, it seems likely that contemporary and/or future courts would interpret this provision to not apply to such official communications from Congress.

II. The First Amendment (and the Fifth)

The Logan Act, recall, was written in 1799, well over a century before the rise of modern First (and Fifth) Amendment doctrine with regard to protections for speech and against prosecutions for unclear misconduct. It seems quite likely, as one district court suggested in passing in 1964, that the terms of the statute are both unconstitutionally vague and in any event unlikely to survive the far stricter standards contemporary courts place on such content-based restrictions on speech. Thus, even if the Act does encompass official communications from Members of Congress acting within their legislative capacity, it seems likely that it would not survive modern First Amendment scrutiny were it to be invoked in such a case.
 
Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol. :D
Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. :cuckoo: Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.

Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.
The Constitution does not permit individual citizens other than the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Now had their been no law in place prohibiting such, then individual citizens could work with foreign nations to undo treaties between a sitting U.S. president and a foreign nation. But there is such a law. And since the Constitution grants the power to advise and consent such treaties to the Senate, and not just one party in the Senate, those 47 rogue senators don't have any authority granted by the Constitution to permit them to sabotage a deal that one party is against.
 
No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.
WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title...

Give me a link. You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts. :lmao:

Here ya go, forum nut...

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute

Senators are elected officials, just as President Obama. What Obama has done goes against the best interests of the United States and our allies.
 

Forum List

Back
Top