Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Come on guys! Don't be shy. What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through? Don't avoid the question.
and how does that apply to this...................They explained about the Constitution and that any agreement without the Senate isn't binding............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.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.
If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president, would you be defending the Democrats?
Mostly correct............or the sites would have already be destroyed............But we do have the ability to do so...........Come on guys! Don't be shy. What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through? Don't avoid the question.
what will happen. Not much of anything. Our own intelligence indicates Iran is five years from the bomb. Russia and China will start trading with Iran again, treaty or no treaty.
The Zionists will whine and bitch and scream, but they don't have the will or the ability to strike Iran.
Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should.
What does that have to do with which poster is closer to being right, with respect to the commission of treason?Nonsense....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.
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?
If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president, would you be defending the Democrats?
If the Democrats had done it, THEY would have written a Letter which PROMISED that they would scuttle the deal to PREVENT IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Which, if such were during a time of war, as is the case today, THAT would actually BE Treason.
But I just want to say, that you idiots can't understand the DIFFERENCE is PRICELESS!
Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
Complete nonsense. Lack of indictments mean no such thing. There can be political reasons for why indictments are not forthcoming, should that be the case, other than because no law was violated.The Senators acted under the aegis of Senatorial Functionality.I said the signatory Senators did NOT attempt to influence the negotiations?...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...
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..."
I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?...So now you change your position to that 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...".
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.The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, nor its upper chamber - the Senate....There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.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.
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.That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.
Game. Set. Match.
Next contestant, please.
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?
Ahhhhh... but there's the rub... no US law was violated.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.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.
The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............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.You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............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:You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................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.
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.
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.
and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
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.
Indictments are all that signify.Complete nonsense. Lack of indictments mean no such thing. There can be political reasons for why indictments are not forthcoming, should that be the case, other than because no law was violated.The Senators acted under the aegis of Senatorial Functionality.I said the signatory Senators did NOT attempt to influence the negotiations?...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...
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..."
I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?...So now you change your position to that 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...".
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.The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, nor its upper chamber - the Senate....There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.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.
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.That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.
Game. Set. Match.
Next contestant, please.
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?
I asked this before ... who granted them any such right?and how does that apply to this...................They explained about the Constitution and that any agreement without the Senate isn't binding............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.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.
Thank you and have a nice day.............They have that right and authority...........period.
Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
You might be a lot of things, but one thing you are not, is an American.Oh I love this...
One morning coming up pretty quick I expect, we're going to wake up to find that the Left's subversion has once again screwed us but good.
Now on 9-11-01, I sat there in my N.Y. Apartment, watching the dust rise out of Manhattan, the WTCs which were there that morning, gone... and I watched as the fomenters of Leftist guile did their best to pretend that they had absolutely NO PART in that destruction.
OH how they weeped and gnashed their collective tooth.
I was in Yahoo's old Washington Watch room... a regular for many years at that time...
I remember like it was yesterday, trying to get my head around the unimaginable events of that day, and thinking about those same Leftists; who had LONG defended the Clinton Cult's moves to cut the CIA budget, passing policy that forbid them from hiring foreign resources with 'criminal records'.... all hotly contested policy over the preceding years... and I begin to type:
"Friends, Look around this room and see the idiots, all amazed that what they have so long fought to defend, has finally come to pass. Today they're shocked that en enemy has struck us, which was made possible by 8 YEARS OF SUBVERSION, which ceaselessly promoted the interests of our enemies... remember back to '93 when they demanded that the Towers were bombed by CRIMINALS and how we said then that they were NOT criminals but warriors, determined to injure us in a prolonged and determined fight to destroy us, and the left laughed at the very idea of that notion, referred to it as INSANITY of the tinfoil hat variety.
I tell you today, as the Pentagon burns, as thousands lay slaughtered in the streets of Manhattan, that we are only weeks, maybe months away, from watching the same idiots in here crying today, returning to defend our enemies... overtly siding with them, doing everything in their power to provide them aid and comfort... ."
OMG How they howled in OUTRAGE at that very suggestion.
But sure enough, within 18 months they were clambering to support the HUMAN SHIELDS in Iraq and 8 years later, with Osama Bin Laden still on the run and Saddam Hussein dead... they elected barack hussein obama as the President of the US and TODAY defend HIS RIGHT to PROVIDE IRAN WITH THE MEANS TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
So on that looming morning, I want you to know... that there will be no joining hands, there will be no 'we're all Americans'.
We, the Americans, will be AT WAR with the enemies of the United States, both Foreign and DOMESTIC.
Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should.
Presidents have reached agreements with other countries for decades without Congress ratifying them.
Is this another case of "It's okay until the black guy does it?" Because you all seem to suffer from that a lot.
They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not................. IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............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.You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............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: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.
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.
and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
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.
But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
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.
