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

[IlarMeilyr]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

Ag[]ain, you fauny, the Senate as whole can ratify of disavow treaties but if Obumbler's actions

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement

Furthermore, some of the sanctions language requires Congressional authorizations.

As I said, this is a treaty which Obumbler chooses not to call a treaty to do an end run around the Constitutional ratification authority of the Senate.

As a semi-side note: Did you and your ilk ever ponder what the PURPOSE of the Congressional notification is for "Executive agreements?"

 

[Faun]

Summing up the last post...............

The Senate and the Executive have shared powers under the Constitution............

Since Obama doesn't ask for the advice or Consent of the Senate they have the right to say FUCK YOU TOO OBAMA...............which is going on in this situation................

If Obama cuts a deal..................IT'S NOT BINDING.................He doesn't have the consent of the people on negotiating with a TERROR SUPPORTING COUNTRY.................

Therefore, he can shove his little hissy fit up his ass................TELL THE DOJ TO PROSECUTE...............DO IT............and it will END IN SCOTUS..............and will CHALLENGE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS to the Constitution ONCE AND FOR ALL..............

PLEASE DO SO.

Total bullshit. Obama was given the consent of the people by being elected. There have been thousands of executive agreements made between the POTUS and foreign nations without the Senate voting on it.

 

[Faun]

Liberals are mentally ill, they would rather put their idiot offspring at risk of being nuked rather than call out their president when he is wrong. The man from Kenya is desperate for a legacy. So desperate that he will place us and Israel at risk.

Riiiight ... we should care what brain-dead birfers have to think.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."

They are citizens of the United States.

Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.

And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, "Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."

The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.

You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................

Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............

They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......

Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............

You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........

and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.

Deal with it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Antares]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement

" Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding."

Executive agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Senate is correct in stating that we are not legally bound to this type of agreement.

 

[eagle1462010]

Summing up the last post...............

The Senate and the Executive have shared powers under the Constitution............

Since Obama doesn't ask for the advice or Consent of the Senate they have the right to say FUCK YOU TOO OBAMA...............which is going on in this situation................

If Obama cuts a deal..................IT'S NOT BINDING.................He doesn't have the consent of the people on negotiating with a TERROR SUPPORTING COUNTRY.................

Therefore, he can shove his little hissy fit up his ass................TELL THE DOJ TO PROSECUTE...............DO IT............and it will END IN SCOTUS..............and will CHALLENGE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS to the Constitution ONCE AND FOR ALL..............

PLEASE DO SO.

Total bullshit. Obama was given the consent of the people by being elected. There have been thousands of executive agreements made between the POTUS and foreign nations without the Senate voting on it.

And none of the thousands are Legally binding under the Constitution.

We signed a Treaty with Taiwan........Mutual defense Treaty..................Carter made an Executive Agreement against the Treaty............to negotiate with Iran................The Treaty was NEVER AMENDED............The Treaty is still in effect......................His Agreement can be undone via the next President that cares to do so...............

Because neither are binding under the Constitution.

 

[Lakhota]

Iran understands our Constitution better than most NaziCons.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.

Make our money pretty much worthless, and it takes a lot more of it to equal where we were before he started his economic lunacy. The stock market going up doesn't translate into the economy as a whole doing well. Our debt is a cancer and you assholes on the far left are too fucking stupid to see it and too dishonest to admit it anyway.

The unemployment numbers are phony and you asshole lolberals refuse to accept that fact. Stop counting all those who are not even trying to look for work anymore -- and by all means COUNT all the illegal aliens who have some relatively menial jobs -- and you too can make the unemployment numbers say almost whatever you want. But it takes a special kind of douche bag (congrats, you made it) to BUY that horseshit.

Speaking of unemployment numbers ... you never did reveal your source of unemployment numbers since you reject the BLS's...... Where do you get your statistics from...?

^ A MAJOR pathetic (albeit an attempted "deft") change of topic technique. Exactly what I expect from a fauny like you.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement

" Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding."

Executive agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Senate is correct in stating that we are not legally bound to this type of agreement.

YEP..................Absolutely correct..................

That's that funny little document called the Constitution that the left tries to piss on all the time..............

Good post. I AGREE...........

 

[Kondor3]

...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...

I said the signatory Senators did NOT attempt to influence the negotiations?

Show me... link please.

I think you have me confused with any of a variety of other posters whose opinions differ from your own.

...So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?"...

I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?

Show me... link please.

I said that there was no violation of the Logan Act because the Senators acted WITH "...the authority of the United States...".

...There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.

The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, and its upper chamber - the Senate.

As I said before, they already HAVE the 'authority of the United States'.

Why?

Because they ARE the Government of the United States - or, more specifically, one of the co-equal three major branches of the US Government.

That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.

Game. Set. Match.

Next contestant, please.

 

[natstew]

Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.

Damn. For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo. You MUST be a lib.

You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!

You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia. And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.

Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post. You really ARE a poster child for stupid.

Try to follow along. Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.

I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.

You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing. You fucking asshole. Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.

Now hurry back to fucking yourself.

Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....

Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat. Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.

Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........

Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.

You same gutless wonders were screaming and crying that Reagan was getting us into a war with the Soviet Union while you shit your pants!

 

[Faun]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

Agfain, you fauny, the Senate as whole can ratify of disavow treaties but if Obumbler's actions

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement

Furthermore, some of the sanctions language requires Congressional authorizations.

As I said, this is a treaty which Obumbler chooses not to call a treaty to do an end run around the Constitutional ratification authority of the Senate.

As a semi-side note: Did you and your ilk ever ponder what the PURPOSE of the Congressional notification is for "Executive agreements?"

Why do I have to repeat this over and over? Is no one on he right capable of understanding this??

47 members of the Senate is not "the Senate."

Maybe you should have that tattooed across your forehead. But don't get it done backwards, you certainly don't want to be as stupid as this brain-dead rightie, whose own stupidity was revealed because she used a mirror to carve a backwards 'B' on her own face....

McCain supporter maimed for her politics by robber Update Hoax Hot Air

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You are mistaken on several levels. First of all, treaties do not "take effect" merely because the Senate approves them. The Senate does not ratify treaties. It can, however, approve a treaty which can then be ratified by the inclusive parties, should they wish to proceed.

You are also VERY mistaken to claim that a "presidential agreement" does not carry the full weight of the law. It is as lawfully binding as if the Senate had approved it. That is not the same as the Senate voting down on such a measure, which would express the Senate's disapproval.

As far as some future president altering or cancelling an existing treaty, that can happen, and has happened, to even Senate approved treaties. There is nothing special about a treaty the Senate does not vote on to approve.

An Executive Treaty is merely an agreement between two heads of states... 'You do this and I'll do that'.

Which is perfectly fine in most circumstances, wherein the Executive is actually loyal to the Nation, whose principles, he supposedly represents.

In the United States, a Constitutional Republic... this loyalty status is usually maintained by the Constitutional requirement that the Chief Executive be a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States".

Sadly, the US being long since infected with a perversion of human reasoning, which rationalizes that Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle act as a balance against the recognition and defense of and adherence to the Principles that define America... a popular swell provided that a person who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States was elected Chief Executive.

The reason that the US Constitution precludes native born individuals NOT born in the natural consequence of two citizen parents, OKA: A Natural Born Citizen... is that where a person is born to a Foreign National, there exist an axiomatic split loyalty. We know this to be true in obama's case, in that he took the extra-measure of actually pretending to write a book, wherein his ghost writer extolls the virtues of Communism, a deviant species of human reasoning which is decidedly hostile to American Principle.

Therein, and through the history of his administrative cult, in lending aid and comfort through the shifting of policy to the benefit of those of demonstrated hostility to the United States, having consistently promoted the interests of the enemies of the United States, to the point that International Islamic Terrorism is today, in VASTLY better shape than it was on 9-11-01. Meaning that obama has reversed 8 years of US effort to degrade the means of Islam to wage war and in particular, to wage war against the United States.

And it is in THAT, which reasonable US Citizens, OKA: Americans, KNOW that where the issue is an Islamic enemy of the United States and their acquisition of Nuclear weapons, and the question is, "What will obama do?", the reasonable answer is that he will promote their means to do so.

Therefore... the 47 Americans in the Senate, did what NO ONE ELSE IN US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WERE WILLING TO DO: They stood up and publicly denounced policy discussions which are destructive to the Security of the United States.

Meaning that obama made the most feckless governing body on the planet, into something, which when compared to him... APPEAR TO BE PURVEYORS OF UNERRING LEADERSHIP!

Possibly for the first time in the history of the United States Senate... they took a firm position in the face of a highly destructive executive subversive.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

47 members of the Senate is not "the Senate."

True... But they are the only Americans in the Senate, so it effectively works out the same.

 

[HenryBHough]

Here we all thought Obama believed he was the new Jesus Christ.

But it turns out he was just Judas Junior.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

Agfain, you fauny, the Senate as whole can ratify of disavow treaties but if Obumbler's actions

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement

Furthermore, some of the sanctions language requires Congressional authorizations.

As I said, this is a treaty which Obumbler chooses not to call a treaty to do an end run around the Constitutional ratification authority of the Senate.

As a semi-side note: Did you and your ilk ever ponder what the PURPOSE of the Congressional notification is for "Executive agreements?"

Why do I have to repeat this over and over? Is no one on he right capable of understanding this??

47 members of the Senate is not "the Senate."

Maybe you should have that tattooed across your forehead. But don't get it done backwards, you certainly don't want to be as stupid as this brain-dead rightie, whose own stupidity was revealed because she used a mirror to carve a backwards 'B' on her own face....

McCain supporter maimed for her politics by robber Update Hoax Hot Air

Why DO you repeat that worthless inane meaningless babble?

I dunno. Maybe you're just as fucking stupid as you come across.

Let's help you out. You need it. Clearly.

47 members of the Senate is not the Senate. Check. Nobody said otherwise. Check.

But, to ratify a fucking treaty, it would take the super-majority of the Senate. When Obumbler does an end run around that Constitutional treaty provision by trying to frame the "negotiations" as merely a proposed "executive agreement," then the Senators (individual Senators) have as much right to write a letter to the shitbirds in Iran as anybody else. Maybe more. And when THEY speak, individually or as a group, they ARE addressing the interests of the United States AS part of the GOVERNMENT of the United States.

Damn, but you are one fucking dishonest stupid hack bitch, Fauny.

 

[Faun]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."

They are citizens of the United States.

Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.

And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, "Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."

The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.

You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................

Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............

They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......

Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............

You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........

and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.

Deal with it.

Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......​

47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.

 

[natstew]

Obama has done the same thing that the 47 Senators have done...................Don't negotiate with Bush as I'll give you a better deal once I take office............................

and now BITCHES about the Senate doing the same thing he did already............

CRY ME A RIVER LIBS.

STILL citing Breibart AND Pajamas Media for your source of "knowledge"?????

FNC, the most reliable and honest source of news.

 

[Kondor3]

...B.S. (as usual) Obama has not lost the "trust of congress" BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD IT from right wing bigots in congress. From the very first week of his inauguration, right wingers met and swore to do everything to undermine his administration......What really pissed you guys on here and idiots like McConnell, is that Obama had the nerve to get RE-ELECTED.....Live with it.

Blah, blah, blah... endless phukking blah... excuses for poor performance, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Your Failed Messiah had two (2) years with a Democratic majority in both House AND Senate, and a majority in the Senate for FOUR years.

And, in his own words, he got a "shellacking" in the 2010 mid-terms, when he lost the House, just as, in the 2014 mid-terms, he got ANOTHER 'shellacking' when he lost the Senate, as well.

When The People vote you into office, then, slowly but surely, erode your legislative base, that screams 'loss of confidence' or 'loss of trust' to most sane folks.

You can attribute that to his shoving ObamaCare down the throat of the nation, his presiding over the interim victory of the Gay Mafia, his days-after-midterms Imperial Decree on Immigration-Shamnesty, and now, his squabbles with our good friend and ally, Israel, and his Neville Chamberlain -esque approach to dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The President has, indeed, lost the confidence and trust of much of the Congress and much of The People, just as I've said.

All the automatic gainsay and excuse-making in the world notwithstanding.

This sorry state of affairs speaks volumes to both an increasing resistance to the Liberal Agenda and the inability of Liberals to take a good, hard look in the mirror.

Your loss.

Sorry.

The country will soon be done with your, for another decade or so, once we get past January 20, 2017.

You've had your chance.

You failed to deliver.