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

[ChrisL]

Obama is not the king. He works for us. He is an employee of the citizens of the USA.

And he was duly elected by the people which includes the responsibility of negotiating with foreign nations. Individual citizens don't get to sabotage any such deals merely because they don't like Obama or the deals he makes.

The senators are not "individual citizens". They were also elected by the people to represent them. They are members of Congress. Obama is NOT a dictator or a king. This is something he needs to realize.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.

The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.

Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

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.

Holyfuckingshit!

We have a "special" class of citizens now??



You're a fucking nut, chris.

They are members of Congress, sorry but you are wrong . . . again. Also, I believe it is a sign of mental illness when a person has to post the same laughing smileys in a row, as if that somehow makes your point more poignant? Lol.

 

[Faun]

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.

Where did I do that?

You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."

 

[ChrisL]

The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.

The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.

Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.

It wasn't wrong. I support those senators. They are doing the right thing by America and it's allies.

Tell me . . . what do you think is going to happen in the ME once Iran has nuclear capabilities?

 

[Faun]

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. 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.

Nope you're wrong. That law is obsolete and means nothing. There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.

You remain a fucking nut, chris.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Where did I do that?

You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."

They should get together and do an independent investigation of Obama to see what kind of laws HE has broken. Yes they are a part of the senate. They are allowed to disagree with the president and to be forceful about, as that is the way our government works. Obama is not the king. He needs the approval of Congress before he makes any kind of treaty arrangements. But we know how shady Obama is, and so he will use executive privilege instead of taking the correct route. The guy is an awful president. Just awful. He has no common sense and is blinded by his ridiculous and stupid beyond belief liberal ideologies.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Nope you're wrong. That law is obsolete and means nothing. There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.

You remain a fucking nut, chris.

Sorry, that would be you and anyone else who agrees with this "deal." This deal is what is nutty. So do tell what you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Nope you're wrong. That law is obsolete and means nothing. There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.

You remain a fucking nut, chris.

IOW, you've got nothing so you will now resort to insults. Liberal tactics are SO transparent. Us more intelligent people can see right through you.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Where did I do that?

You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."

 

[ChrisL]

Come on guys! Don't be shy. What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through? Don't avoid the question.

 

[Kondor3]

The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.

The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.

Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.

Rightly or wrongly, the letter-signatories cannot be touched, nor will they be.

The President has lost the trust of much of Congress and the trust of much of The People, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.

Especially in matters relating to striking a potential bad and appeasing deal with a self-declared mortal enemy of the United States, obtaining nuclear weaponry to affix atop its existing medium-range ballistic missile delivery systems.

People still remember Neville Chamberlain, and the lessons learned from that well-intentioned yet naive and gullible fellow's appeasing behaviors and outcomes.

People have long-since come to associate the President with such behaviors, especially with respect to Muslim adversaries - fairly or unfairly, rightly or wrongly.

The Senate at-large, as a co-equal branch of the US Government, and as the body responsible for vetting and ratifying treaties, is not barred from influencing the negotiation of treaties, and is seen by a great many as undertaking an 'intervention' in this instance, to either (1) thwart attempts to reduce this to an Agreement that does not have to be vetted nor ratified by the Senate, and to (2) thwart attempts to serve-up a Chamberlain-esque 'bad deal' about so visceral an issue as nuclear weaponry in the hands of our mortal enemies.

Chances are very good that each and every one of those Senators who signed the letter did so with at least a modicum of regret that we had come to such a sorry state of affairs, but, they may have acted from the courage of their convictions, so, rightly or wrongly, they get props for that much.

The rest will be proven or disproven by future events, and, in the meantime, there will be no indictments nor sanctions leveled at those signatories.

And, they have served notice to our Lame Duck President that he is perceived as no longer trustworthy, to conduct the foreign affairs of The Nation, unsupervised.

 

[Antares]

CHRISL SAID:

“I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”

Nonsense.

You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.

Projection Boy, pure projection.

And yes, I intend the worst possible meaning of the word Boy.

I bet you do. Vile disgusting racists have that tendency. It is also off topic for this thread. Pay attention and learn to debate like an adult.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Feel free to put me on ignore, you don't seem to have the the guts to engage in any real debate kid.

 

[ChrisL]

The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.

The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.

Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.

Rightly or wrongly, the letter-signatories cannot be touched, nor will they be.

The President has lost the trust of much of Congress and the trust of much of The People, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.

Especially in matters relating to striking a potential bad and appeasing deal with a self-declared mortal enemy of the United States, obtaining nuclear weaponry to affix atop its existing medium-range ballistic missile delivery systems.

People still remember Neville Chamberlain, and the lessons learned from that well-intentioned yet naive and gullible fellow's appeasing behaviors and outcomes.

People have long-since come to associated the President with such behaviors, especially with respect to Muslim adversaries - fairly or unfairly, rightly or wrongly.

The Senate at-large, as a co-equal branch of the US Government, and as the body responsible for vetting and ratifying treaties, is not barred from influencing the negotiation of treaties, and is seen by a great many as undertaking an 'intervention' in this instance, to either (1) thwart attempts to reduce this to an Agreement that does not have to be vetted nor ratified by the Senate, and to (2) thwart attempts to serve-up a Chamberlain-esque 'bad deal' about so visceral an issue as nuclear weaponry in the hands of our mortal enemies.

They won't address any of your most valid points. They are stupid ideological idiots with no common sense whatsoever. We need better education in this country as a whole. That much is obvious.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I have things to do. Good luck trying to convince the Obamatards of how terrible this deal is and the terrible precedent it sets.

 

[Antares]

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.

Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should.

 

[nat4900]

If those 47 senators are so darn proud of that letter and would do it again in a heartbeat (and as some rightwing nut-jobs on this thread are alluding) they will actually GAIN seats in the senate come next election ..... One has to wonder why some prominent ones are NOW saying (paraphrasing

"There was a snow storm coming and we didn't pay too much attention to the letter's content....."

"Actually the letter was meant for Obama and not the Ayatollahs "

"Come on, the letter was meant as a joke..."


Just wondering........(lol)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

The Constitution does not confer any powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.

No shit, Sherlock. But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties. And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.

Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit? Nah. Probably not. But here's a clue. Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally. Fuck him.

 

[Kondor3]

If those 47 senators are so darn proud of that letter and would do it again in a heartbeat (and as some rightwing nut-jobs on this thread are alluding) they will actually GAIN seats in the senate come next election ..... One has to wonder why some prominent ones are NOW saying (paraphrasing

"There was a snow storm coming and we didn't pay too much attention to the letter's content....."

"Actually the letter was meant for Obama and not the Ayatollahs "

"Come on, the letter was meant as a joke..."


Just wondering........(lol)

Pandering to the Fence Sitters, who could drift in either direction?

 

[Faun]

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. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...

1. there was no violation of the Constitution

2. there was no violation of the Logan Act

The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.

The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - especially in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.

There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.

Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.

So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.

It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.

Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.

The letter-signatories broke no laws.

If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.

The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, "The Senate."

The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.

They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.

As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.

As they just did.

Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.

They were 'influencing' a pending deal.

There is no prohibition within either the Constitution nor the Logan Act, regarding the actions of sitting and full-fledged and empowered and equal members OF the Government, undertaking such influential actions.

As to your 'position', well...

Your position, and that of a great many of your fellow countrymen, differ.

Your position, and that of the US Justice Department, will probably differ, as well.

So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't. So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?" There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.