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

[Kondor3]

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............

... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.

But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.

They acted within the framework of an ad hoc Senate committee, staffed by members of a single party, under the aegis of the Senate.

They are mostly lawyers and Constitutional S(ubject) M(atter) E(xperts) themselves, and have other SME's to advise them, and they can certainly conjure-up the necessary authorization within such an ad hoc committee framework, any time they like. They thought this through, long before you and I ever got wind of it. That's why they're not worried, and why you-and-yours are having an apoplexy fit, that you cannot touch them on this one. But it's one heckuva comedy show that you guys are putting on.

 

[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.

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?

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.

Indictments are all that signify.

Everything else is background noise.

Again, not true. Politics can play a role in whether or not indictments are handed out. In another thread, you claimed Obama broke the law over his immigration policy and thought Congress would impeach him over it. Does the lack of impeachment, which is tantamount to an indictment, prove Obama didn't break the law?

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

and how does that apply to this...................They explained about the Constitution and that any agreement without the Senate isn't binding............

Thank you and have a nice day.............They have that right and authority...........period.

I asked this before ... who granted them any such right?

The Constitution Article II..........you may read the Federalist papers section 75 if you want Hamilton's explanation.............................

It is a dual job...........unless you are lib that doesn't care about the Constitution and our laws...............as you completely ignore that Obama did the same dang thing.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

Whether or not Iran wants to get a nuke, is none of your fucking business, asshole. You don't decide how others should live their lives on their own property.

If you think you can, come on over to my house and try to tell me what's what under my roof and see what happens next. I will personally show you just how wrong that ideology is.

 

[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.

Ahhhhh... but there's the rub... no US law was violated.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.

Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.

Again, your hero, George W. Stupid, invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of people because God told him to. Not seeing how his belief in sky fairies is any less "bloodthristy" than theirs.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Even the first amendment has limits, based on this organization for whom you work. Screaming "fire" in a theater full of people when in reality there is no fire is also free speech, but clearly illegal and carries a penalty with it.

If those GOPers had had brains in their heads at the time, they never would have signed such a stupid letter to begin with.

And just because you THINK you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.

I agree with it...................

If Obama doesn't want to allow the full branch of Gov't in on the process, then quite frankly he can go to hell..............

He's attempting to sign a 10 year deal for the United States with Iran..........including lifting some sanctions if Iran plays nice...............

They will not play nice and any person who thinks they'll honor it is a fool.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Well, he needs to ask holder to swear out an indictment for treason against Cotton and friends,

So you want holder to just pretend that 'the law' defines treason as openly defying the policy of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

ROFLMNAO!

Oh lordy... THAT is ADORABLE!

Ladies and gentlemen, what you witnessed above is what is known as Relativism.

Ya see, Reader, relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

Now what you know what Relativism is and what it does, hopefully you know how dangerous it is and why it is that the same perversion of reasoning is what demands that demonstrably deviant sexual behavior is perfectly normal, that there is a RIGHT to murder their pre-born children and that paying people to not work is fair to those who's property is confiscated to pay them, and that somehow, this will stimulate them to seek employment.

For those keeping score, that instinct your feeling is correct... what your seeing there is the manifestation of what is OKA: Evil.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Whether or not Iran wants to get a nuke, is none of your fucking business, asshole. You don't decide how others should live their lives on their own property.

If you think you can, come on over to my house and try to tell me what's what under my roof and see what happens next. I will personally show you just how wrong that ideology is.

Have you been yelling at me from next door calling me the Great Satan and telling me that Allah wills me to die...............

In this country we have laws against threatening our neighbors and their lives..............as you would have to be building shit to kill your neighbor......

Are you building shit to kill your neighbors..............to pay for someone else to kill them...aka terrorist................

Bad example.

 

[JoeB131]

Executive Actions are not legally binding, they are only POLITICALLY binding, it's just that simple.

Given that fact the US can walk away from it any time we want to.

The Senators simply informed Iran of that fact.

Yeah, but we won't.

Let's say we get an agreement that Iran puts off it's nuclear development for 10 years, and we lift sanctions and other countries lift their sanctions.

And then let's say the country elects Scott Walker. I like Scott Walker and and might even vote for him if he doesn't do anything crazy between now and November 2016. So it's 2017, the Iranians are living up to their end of the agreement, and Scott decides, 'Hey, that agreement Obama reached with Iran was bullocks."

So, yeah, I guess he could unilaterally re-impose the Presidential sanctions against Iran and give them lease to go back to making nukes. But do you really think Germany, France, England, Russia and China are going to go along with that shit? I doubt it.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Well, he needs to ask holder to swear out an indictment for treason against Cotton and friends,

So you want holder to just pretend that 'the law' defines treason as openly defying the policy of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

ROFLMNAO!

Oh lordy... THAT is ADORABLE!

Ladies and gentlemen, what you witnessed above is what is known as Relativism.

Ya see, Reader, relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

Now what you know what Relativism is and what it does, hopefully you know how dangerous it is and why it is that the same perversion of reasoning is what demands that demonstrably deviant sexual behavior is perfectly normal, that there is a RIGHT to murder their pre-born children and that paying people to not work is fair to those who's property is confiscated to pay them, and that somehow, this will stimulate them to seek employment.

For those keeping score, that instinct your feeling is correct... what your seeing there is the manifestation of what is OKA: Evil.

Hey, dipshit, I was agreeing with you guys that the 47 weren't committing treason... but never mind.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Whether or not Iran wants to get a nuke, is none of your fucking business, asshole. You don't decide how others should live their lives on their own property.

If you think you can, come on over to my house and try to tell me what's what under my roof and see what happens next. I will personally show you just how wrong that ideology is.

Wow... the little wanker wants to play Internet Tough Guy...

Are we all now appropriately frightened and cowed?

Whether a dogmatic, martyrdom-encouraging theocracy gets a nuclear weapon or not is EVERY sane man's business.

Which explains why that hasn't occurred to you.

Given that you are neither 'sane' nor holding a place at the grownup's table amongst actual men who have earned that title.

Now, back to the Kiddie Table with you... you're bothering the grownups.

 

[Antares]

Executive Actions are not legally binding, they are only POLITICALLY binding, it's just that simple.

Given that fact the US can walk away from it any time we want to.

The Senators simply informed Iran of that fact.

Yeah, but we won't.

Let's say we get an agreement that Iran puts off it's nuclear development for 10 years, and we lift sanctions and other countries lift their sanctions.

And then let's say the country elects Scott Walker. I like Scott Walker and and might even vote for him if he doesn't do anything crazy between now and November 2016. So it's 2017, the Iranians are living up to their end of the agreement, and Scott decides, 'Hey, that agreement Obama reached with Iran was bullocks."

So, yeah, I guess he could unilaterally re-impose the Presidential sanctions against Iran and give them lease to go back to making nukes. But do you really think Germany, France, England, Russia and China are going to go along with that shit? I doubt it.

I don't care what the other Nations do, I care what we do.

 

[JoeB131]

Even the first amendment has limits, based on this organization for whom you work. Screaming "fire" in a theater full of people when in reality there is no fire is also free speech, but clearly illegal and carries a penalty with it.

If those GOPers had had brains in their heads at the time, they never would have signed such a stupid letter to begin with.

And just because you THINK you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.

Oh, i think signing the letter was stupid, but so is obama rushing to get a treaty so that he can say he got a treaty.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't care what the other Nations do, I care what we do.

You should care what other nations do. Other nations told us invading Iraq was a really, really stupid idea and they didn't go along with it.

It turned out to be a really stupid, stupid idea.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.

Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.

This is peaceful, is it?

One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

You're an imbecile.

Intercepted Japanese Communications the day of the first bomb, indicated that surrendered was being strongly urged. Responses to those suggestions indicated that hardliners were using the the unconditional phrasing to suggest that the Emperor would be removed from power, using that as a means to stave off capitulation. Truman decided to revise the terms and close the deal... his hunch paid off. That the Soviets would pushing down on Japan was certainly a consideration, but cities evaporating into thin air... brought the truth home in irrepressible terms.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

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.

One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.

Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.

This is peaceful, is it?

One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.​

Does any of that feature Jesus of Nazareth teaching his followers to commit violence or to engage in warfare in defense or advancing of The Faith?

 

[Dot Com]

Republicans are like the children that refuse to believe they lost. They lost the Presidential election but act AS IF they didn't.

When they win they win but when they lose they win as well. Odd that.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

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.

One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.

Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.

This is peaceful, is it?

One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.​

Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................

End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............

I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.

And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.