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

[Faun]

...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?

Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.

My apologies.

I concede the point.

The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.

But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.

----------------------------

Oh, and, by the way...

I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...

I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.

Thanks for that. Let's see if we can reduce this to the smallest possible denominator. Here is the Logan Act ... Other than whether or not they have the authority to do what they did, do you see any other portions that were not violated...

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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute​

 

[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.​

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.

Typical atheist/agnostic (usually Lib-Prog) faux moral equivalency, in an attempt to draw attention away from the true Bad Guys (Militant Muslims) in all of this.

You're wrong yet again -- I'm neither atheist nor agnostic. Try harder!

 

[eagle1462010]

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

aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............

and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............

We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.

You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.

So now you mind read.............are you ............

They are part of the Senate and a very large part.................and as our representatives they have the RIGHT TO SAY..........................

OBAMA...........KNOCK THE BS OFF............as they are part of this country and Gov't as well...............

As you again ignore that Obama did the same danged thing......................That topic sucks doesn't it.

 

[Vigilante]

White House Begs GOP to Drop Tough Stance on Iran Nuclear Deal

breitbart.com ^ | 3/15/15
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough wrote a letter on Saturday night to Senator Bob Corker (and the rest of the U.S. Congress) on behalf of the President regarding the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran. In the letter, he demands that the U.S. Senate — which has constitutional authority in treaty making — must step back and let the White House navigate the diplomatic realm with Tehran. The White House argues that the deal is facing imminent collapse because the Congress, by continuing to promote sanctions against the terror regime, will supposedly push Iran’s “hardliners” over the edge and...

 

[Faun]

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.

Despite the expertise you paint them with, they still got a fundamental part of the letter wrong. The letter idiotically claims the Senate ratifies treaties.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.​

They do not ratify treaties. They reject or approve of ratification. If such a resolution is passed, only then can ratification occur between the nations involved.

Guess Cotton, who I believe is the Junior Senator to draft the letter, doesn't quite know the Constitution as well as you seem to think.

Is not the issuance of Advice and Consent, by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate, a ratification process?

We dally with semantics here.

Most of us merely slip into the traditional shorthand notation for the 'advice and consent' process which is tantamount to the same thing.

A ratification by any other name is still a ratification.

We all have better things to do than to take side trips to Semantics Land,when the functional equivalent is sufficient for everyone's purposes, and has adequate support within the realm of custom and usage, to permit a little variation in the damned verbiage presented to foreigners, yes?

It's part of the process and if approved, can certainly lead to ratification, but the Senate itself does not ratify treaties. And you can call it semantics if that makes you feel better, but Senator Cotton got it wrong. The Senate does not ratify treaties.

 

[Faun]

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.

Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?

The topic isn't about Religion............

It's about a letter to Iran..................the TOPIC...............how about you stay on that topic.

Tell that to your fellow righites. They're the ones who injected religion into this.

So again I ask ... since you didn't answer ... Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?

 

[Antares]

Oh, please. Clinton warned us an attack within our borders was highly likely, and the moronic right claimed he was making that up to get a domestic anti-terrorist team and to get America to forget about his impeachment trial.

Too bad the right wasn't on board. Their anti-Clinton vitriol caused them to take their eyes off the ball.

If President Clinton was half the President Barrack Obama is ... He would have just done it all on his own.

.

Obama is not even half the man Valerie Jarrett is.

 

[Faun]

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

aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............

and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............

We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.

You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.

So now you mind read.............are you ............

They are part of the Senate and a very large part.................and as our representatives they have the RIGHT TO SAY..........................

OBAMA...........KNOCK THE BS OFF............as they are part of this country and Gov't as well...............

As you again ignore that Obama did the same danged thing......................That topic sucks doesn't it.

I'm not reading minds -- I'm repeating back to you what you're saying.

 

[Vigilante]

In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.

In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.[2] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.[3] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is the Treaty of Versailles, which failed to garner support due to inclusion of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The U.S. can also enter into international agreements by way of executive agreements. These are not made under the Treaty Clause, and do not require ratification of two thirds of the Senate. "Congressional-executive agreements" are passed by a majority of both houses of Congress as a regular law. If the agreement is completely within the President's constitutional powers, it can be made by the President alone without Congressional approval; however, it will have the force of an executive order and can be unilaterally revoked by a future President. All of these types of agreements are treated internationally as "treaties". See Foreign policy of the United States#Law.

 

[BlackSand]

Obama is not even half the man Valerie Jarrett is.

That would explain a lot since she is of Iranian descent.

.

 

[Antares]

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.

Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?

The topic isn't about Religion............

It's about a letter to Iran..................the TOPIC...............how about you stay on that topic.

Tell that to your fellow righites. They're the ones who injected religion into this.

So again I ask ... since you didn't answer ... Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?

Because they are not the same thing, in one instance (Islamic) they believe they are ushering in Allah's Kingdom here on earth......the other (Christianity) they are suffering the wrath of the ones doing the ushering.

I find it all very fascinating.

 

[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.​

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.

Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?

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.

Typical atheist/agnostic (usually Lib-Prog) faux moral equivalency, in an attempt to draw attention away from the true Bad Guys (Militant Muslims) in all of this.

You're wrong yet again -- I'm neither atheist nor agnostic. Try harder!

So, you're an atypical contributor, serving-up a typical atheist/agnostic faux moral equivalency. There is no substantive conflict.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............

and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............

We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.

You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.

So now you mind read.............are you ............

They are part of the Senate and a very large part.................and as our representatives they have the RIGHT TO SAY..........................

OBAMA...........KNOCK THE BS OFF............as they are part of this country and Gov't as well...............

As you again ignore that Obama did the same danged thing......................That topic sucks doesn't it.

I'm not reading minds -- I'm repeating back to you what you're saying.

No, you are denying that you said they couldn't DENY a Treaty many many posts ago..........

 

[Vigilante]

Tom Cotton Explains Iran Letter to Bob Schieffer

weejly standard ^ | 3/15/15 | Daniel Halper
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas explained the reasoning behind the letter he and 46 other senators sent to Iran about the nuclear deal this morning on CBS. Watch Cotton's interview with Bob Schieffer

 

[Vigilante]

Cotton says 'no regrets' about letter warning Iran about nuclear deal(Excellent)

Fox News.com ^ | March 15, 2015
Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton on Sunday stood behind the letter he and fellow Senate Republicans sent to Iranian leaders about their nuclear negotiations with the United States, amid criticism that it undermined Obama administration efforts. "It's so important we communicated this message straight to Iran," the freshman senator and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told CBS News' "Face the Nation.” "No regrets at all." The letter signed Monday by Cotton and 46 other GOP senators begins as a primer to Iran leaders about the Constitution. Then it suggests that any international deal to limit Iran’s uranium-enrichment efforts toward...

 

[Faun]

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.

You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.

So now you mind read.............are you ............

They are part of the Senate and a very large part.................and as our representatives they have the RIGHT TO SAY..........................

OBAMA...........KNOCK THE BS OFF............as they are part of this country and Gov't as well...............

As you again ignore that Obama did the same danged thing......................That topic sucks doesn't it.

I'm not reading minds -- I'm repeating back to you what you're saying.

No, you are denying that you said they couldn't DENY a Treaty many many posts ago..........

Try quoting me instead of paraphrasing. I never said the Senate (meaning the whole Senate) couldn't deny a treaty.

 

[Faun]

...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?

Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.

My apologies.

I concede the point.

The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.

But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.

----------------------------

Oh, and, by the way...

I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...

I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.

Thanks for that. Let's see if we can reduce this to the smallest possible denominator. Here is the Logan Act ... Other than whether or not they have the authority to do what they did, do you see any other portions that were not violated...

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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute​

... bump ...

 

[Kondor3]

...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?

Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.

My apologies.

I concede the point.

The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.

But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.

----------------------------

Oh, and, by the way...

I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...

I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.

Thanks for that. Let's see if we can reduce this to the smallest possible denominator. Here is the Logan Act ... Other than whether or not they have the authority to do what they did, do you see any other portions that were not violated...

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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute​

... bump ...

Didn't see this... sorry... and I'm off to partake of dinner in a few, however...

They did, indeed, attempt to influence the negotiations.

Nolo contendere.

Their defense is that they did so with the authority of the United States.

It's the 10,000-pound elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

Its not just Obama seeking a treaty - and the rush is the entire P5+1 who know the world is more secure with it rather than without it.

The UNSC will act on Sanctions if a deal is reached.Republican Senators or future Republican President will be able to do nothing if Iran complies with the treaty. They were fools to send that letter.

 

[Dot Com]

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

aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............

and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............

We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.

You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.

The Cotton 47 don't have to follow the Constitution. They just don't.