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.

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.

No shit, shithead. And the negotiations are not (allegedly) for a "treaty" either, you imbecile.

 

[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

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 Untied States AS part of the GOVERNMENT of the United States.

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

Nobody said otherwise?? Are you baked or are you in a coma... It's been stated repeatedly. Here's but one example ...

"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.............."​

 

[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

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 Untied States AS part of the GOVERNMENT of the United States.

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

Nobody said otherwise?? Are you baked or are you in a coma... It's been stated repeatedly. Here's but one example ...

"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.............."​

No. I'm not baked. YOU are just a stupid dishonest hack bitch. Normally, when you quote something, it's to prove up a point.

YOUR quote doesn't even come close to proving YOUR vapid point, you moron.

So again, for the terminally retarded (i.e., you): A super-majority is not required to ratify a NON treaty which is WHY the asshole in the Oval Office seeks to reach an "Executive Agreement" that will not give the Senate the ability to dis-approve what would be a treaty.

And if it's not going to be a treaty, then the Senators are free to yak at the shitsucking asshole leaders of Iran to let that scumbag lot know that Congress can undo the damage as can any future President. Obumbler tries an end run and then fumes when they call bullshit on the bullshitter.

You have much in common with the Void in Chief.

 

[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.

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.

You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............

and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.

 

[Kondor3]

...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.

Nonsense.

We are not in a declared war against Iran.

We are not in an undeclared war against Iran.

We are not engaged in warlike military operations against Iran, under the aegis of the War Powers Act nor any other.

No warfare-caliber hostilities exist between the United States and Iran.

No Cold War military build-up -caliber operations exist, directed against Iran, beyond a modest real-time presence on its periphery, and considerable surveillance efforts.

We have not declared Iran to be our mortal enemy.

Iran has declared the United States to be The Great Satan and its mortal enemy.

A one-sided definition of a relationship.

Iran is, indeed, our mortal enemy, in practice.

Iran is not our enemy in any respect, at-law.

Consequently, the pallor of 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' does not apply.

Consequently, your allegations do not meet the legal requirements for 'treason' as specified by the Constitution of the United States; not even a Cold War -like scenario.

Fail.

But thank you for playing.

"Johnny, what do we have by way of a consolation prize for this good sport ?"

Next contestant, please.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.

You truly are an imbecile.

You should know that >USING YOUR REASONING< obama committed treason.

Which is no big deal, considering that he has done so repeatedly... but if you're a supporter of the cult, you should probably read more and post less.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[JoeB131]

We have options available with sanctions. The only thing is that we have to get Russia and China to agree to it. THAT is the difficult part. However, since they are both recipients of millions if not BILLIONS of dollars in aid from the United States, we have leverage.

Uh, no, they aren't.

China is the recipient of billions in trade the big corporations are sending over there, but it's not like we're going to give those jobs to AMERICANS. Don't be daft.

We are already punishing Russia over the Ukraine and then expecting their cooperation on Iran. They won't go along with that shit a lot longer.

 

[Faun]

...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.

Kondor3: The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

Faun: Really? Then what do you think this means ...? "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,"

kondor3: Quite correct. The escape-hatch on this one, however, is... "...without the authority of the United States..."

...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...".

I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.

...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, nor its upper chamber - the Senate.

The Logan Act is quite clear actually ... it applies to all citizens who do not have authority. And while the Senate as whole does have authority, individual members of the Senate do not.

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.

As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.

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

Game. Set. Match.

Next contestant, please.

Since your argument is not based in reality, but some bizarre notion that a group of Senators are given the same authority as the Senate as a whole, your, "game, set, match" self-congratulatory victory dance is rather laughable. It is very likely nothing will come of this in legal terms, but certainly not for the issues you raise.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Well, gush durn there, Cleetus, Presidents reach binding agreements with other countries all the time there, durp, durp. For instance, SALT II was never ratified by Congress, but Presidents Carter and Reagan lived up to its terms.

 

[JoeB131]

That was my post earlier, that the liberal chimps want to disarm you and take away your guns - since they do not believe in MAD on a personal level - but for nations the concept of MAD works well...

ON a personal level, most of you are too self Destructive. That's why we don't put Cleetus and Billy Bob in charge of the nukes.

 

[JoeB131]

No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.

Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...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.

Nonsense.

We are not in a declared war against Iran.

We are not in an undeclared war against Iran.

We are not engaged in warlike military operations against Iran, under the aegis of the War Powers Act nor any other.

No warfare-caliber hostilities exist between the United States and Iran.

No Cold War military build-up -caliber operations exist, directed against Iran, beyond a modest real-time presence on its periphery, and considerable surveillance efforts.

We have not declared Iran to be our mortal enemy.

Iran has declared the United States to be The Great Satan and its mortal enemy.

A one-sided definition of a relationship.

Iran is, indeed, our mortal enemy, in practice.

Iran is not our enemy in any respect, at-law.

Consequently, the pallor of 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' does not apply.

Consequently, your allegations do not meet the legal requirements for 'treason' as specified by the Constitution of the United States; not even a Cold War -like scenario.

Fail.

But thank you for playing.

"Johnny, what do we have by way of a consolation prize for this good sport ?"

Next contestant, please.

If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president,

would you be defending the Democrats?

 

[Faun]

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

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 Untied States AS part of the GOVERNMENT of the United States.

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

Nobody said otherwise?? Are you baked or are you in a coma... It's been stated repeatedly. Here's but one example ...

"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.............."​

No. I'm not baked. YOU are just a stupid dishonest hack bitch. Normally, when you quote something, it's to prove up a point.

YOUR quote doesn't even come close to proving YOUR vapid point, you moron.

So again, for the terminally retarded (i.e., you): A super-majority is not required to ratify a NON treaty which is WHY the asshole in the Oval Office seeks to reach an "Executive Agreement" that will not give the Senate the ability to dis-approve what would be a treaty.

And if it's not going to be a treaty, then the Senators are free to yak at the shitsucking asshole leaders of Iran to let that scumbag lot know that Congress can undo the damage as can any future President. Obumbler tries an end run and then fumes when they call bullshit on the bullshitter.

You have much in common with the Void in Chief.

They are not free to "yak" any such thing, you imbecile.

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 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.​

Show me where that applies only to treaties?

 

[JoeB131]

Germany agreed to terms of surrender. It was not about race, idiot.

The rest of of your post is asinine. Russia did have some effect, but the timing of Japan's capitulation the day after the bombing of Nagasaki indicates to any sane person what ended hostilities.

Except Japan didn't capitulate the same Day. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped on August 9. Japan didn't surrender until August 15th. The fact that the Soviets, who entered the war on August 8, were rapidly sweeping through Manchuria had a profound effect on their thinking.

Japan was allowed to keep the Emperor as a figure head but as of VJ day Douglas MacArthur became supreme leader of Japan.

But again, that WASN'T our agreement at Potsdam. Our agreement was unconditional surrender with no pre-conditions. Then suddenly, when we saw the Russians sweeping into Manchuria and Korea and possibly Japan itself, we just loved us some Hirohito. Totally forgot about all the war crimes he committed and everything.

These are not sane rational people we are trying to contain. The repeatedly vow to wipe Israel off the map and drop a nuke on Washington. They no more capable of the responsibility of having a nuclear device that a homicidal maniac is capable of the rational use of a firearm.
Again, asshat. You are so easy.

Guy, frankly, Iran's position is PERFECTLY rational. Countries with atomic weapons don't get invaded. Atomic weapons assure your national sovereignty. The fact is they've never threatened to nuke Washington (they don't have the capability anyway). Nor is it likely they'd nuke Israel and contaminate all those sites Islam considers holy.

 

[Faun]

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.

You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............

and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.

I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.

I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.

 

[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.

Kondor3: The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

Faun: Really? Then what do you think this means ...? "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,"

kondor3: Quite correct. The escape-hatch on this one, however, is... "...without the authority of the United States..."

...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...".

I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.

...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, nor its upper chamber - the Senate.

The Logan Act is quite clear actually ... it applies to all citizens who do not have authority. And while the Senate as whole does have authority, individual members of the Senate do not.

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.

As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.

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

Game. Set. Match.

Next contestant, please.

Since your argument is not based in reality, but some bizarre notion that a group of Senators are given the same authority as the Senate as a whole, your, "game, set, match" self-congratulatory victory dance is rather laughable. It is very likely nothing will come of this in legal terms, but certainly not for the issues you raise.

The Senators acted under the aegis of Senatorial Functionality.

That gives them all the legal cover they'll ever need.

Are you right in this, or am I?

The way to tell, is to see whether indictments are brought against those Senators by the US Department of Justice.

If indictments materialize, you win.

If indictments do not materialize, I win.

Any thoughts on which position the Smart Money in Vegas would be betting on?

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............

and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.

I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.

I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.

You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............

 

[Faun]

No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.

Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.

Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.