Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Holyfuckingshit!Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...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.
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.
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.
We have a "special" class of citizens now??
You're a fucking nut, chris.
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.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.
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.
so far one or two rw talking-heads are saying the "Cotton 47" pulled a dumb move lol
The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.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."Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...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.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.Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
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.
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.
Thank you for proving the OP to be correct.
For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.
Great, another nut who thinks individual members of the Senate have the power of the entire Senate.Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
LOL! Really?
So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
ROFLMNAO!
D E L U S I O N . . . ON PARADE!
Proving once again that:
THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!
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.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.
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.
You are simply not worth it. I set the bar higher than that, Cletus.
Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
LOL! Really?
So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
ROFLMNAO!
D E L U S I O N . . . ON PARADE!
Proving once again that:
THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!
The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.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."Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...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.
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.
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.
Thank you for proving the OP to be correct.
For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.
If I may ask a question, if a policeman advises you to not point a gun at him or he'll shoot you, he'd be giving you aid and comfort? That is amusing, but just as wrong headed thinking as you exhibit by saying that warning Iran that any agreement that isn't approved by the Senate won't be binding in the future, implying that they shouldn't work so hard to create a bad agreement for the United States was giving aid and comfort and therefore treasonous. Ridiculous on it's face...so bad, that I have to wonder if you're just playing word games and don't really believe the twaddle you are posting now.
Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
LOL! Really?
So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
ROFLMNAO!
D E L U S I O N . . . ON PARADE!
Proving once again that:
THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!
Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
The Constitution does not confer any powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...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.
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.
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.
You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
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 anyway.
I know that Leftists like yourself believe Obama has the power/authority to do whatever he wants.
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.They were 'influencing' a pending deal.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.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.
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.
Nobody but the Far Left loons are "pursuing" this Logan Act nonsense.
The Letter is not a violation of the Logan Act. Nor anything remotely close to it. The suggestion by the cult that such is the case, is as ludicrous as their electing a Muslim-Marxist in the wake of the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, in the midst of a war with the cult of islam.
Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
LOL! Really?
So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
ROFLMNAO!
D E L U S I O N . . . ON PARADE!
Proving once again that:
THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!
Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter. NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement. Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
The Constitution does not confer any powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.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.
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.
You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
wrong again nattwit.
In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler. He sucks massively as President. I detest his policies and policy inclinations. I loathe his political philosophy.
But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.
However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
LOL! Really?
So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
ROFLMNAO!
D E L U S I O N . . . ON PARADE!
Proving once again that:
THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!
Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter. NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement. Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
The Constitution does not confer any powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.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.
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.
You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
wrong again nattwit.
In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler. He sucks massively as President. I detest his policies and policy inclinations. I loathe his political philosophy.
But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.
The Constitution does not confer any powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body."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.
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.
You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
wrong again nattwit.
In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler. He sucks massively as President. I detest his policies and policy inclinations. I loathe his political philosophy.
But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.
What was that again, Welcher?
Correct.You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."Where did I do that?Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.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.
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.
